Slashdot Mirror
Student Sues FBI For Planting GPS Tracker
GabriellaKat submits this snippet from Yahoo! news, writing "'Yasir Afifi, 20, says a mechanic doing an oil change on his car in October discovered the device stuck with magnets between his right rear wheel and exhaust. They weren't sure what it was, but Afifi had the mechanic remove it and a friend posted photos of it online to see whether anyone could identify it. Two days later, Afifi says, agents wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment in San Jose, Calif., and demanded their property back.' Now he has decided to sue the FBI. This story was also covered last year when he found the tracking device."
For the illegal wiretappings, they were fined were $200. How much will it be this time?
If we're going to take people's freedom away and treat them like criminals, then why the fuck does America exist?
If we're going to act like some police state or other oppressive regimes, then America is dead.
And if you really think we need this kind of monitoring to be safe, I'd like to point out that even the most monitored states around the World aren't any safer - if anything they're LESS safe because it allows for the abuse by the watchers.
If the FBI gets away with this, I'll consider America and Her values to be completely dead as opposed to mostly dead because of the PATRIOT Act.
This guy would succeed in suing the absolute shit out of them, and the agents responsible would be fired (all the way up the chain). The FBI has repeatedly spit on the cornerstone of our legal system which supposedly guarantees a man to be innocent before proven guilty. They have turned it around once again and forced this man to prove his innocence.
Now let's see just how free this country really is.
Reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/
Images of device:
http://imgur.com/OM6nE.jpg
http://imgur.com/sspLU.jpg
http://imgur.com/f4V2T.jpg
http://imgur.com/srhrK.jpg
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
So you're saying the thing he's done was being a dictator's nephew...?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]",
Exactly! Government agencies never do anything wrong and never target innocent citizens! All hail our three lettered overlords!
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip.
Yeah if I found a device on my car, I'd damn keep it for my own amusement.
When the scaredy clowns in their pussy vests came back for it. "What property, I know the FBI doesn't do illegal things to citizens, so you must be mistaken. Why don't you both go on down to the gym and pump each other".
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
To paraphrase: "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"
People like you should never ever ever serve on a criminal jury.
I am officially gone from
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
Republicans are a strange breed. When it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".
But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.
Go figure.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip
You're joking right?
The "phamplet press" of colonial time was 100% biased to whatever side of the political fence the editors sat on, and would print rumors and innuendo in ways that would make the editors of the weekly world news blanch
They did occasionally get things right, like when they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings (vindicatated 200+ years later), but they also printed stuff that would easily get you sued for libel and slander today.
Considering the founding fathers went out of their way NOT to put limits on it, and considering the state of the press at the time of the constitution really illustrates just how far-reaching freedom of the press should be...
If it were me I would have called the bomb squad and made sure all the TV crews were there to see them pull the tracking device off. I think the government and friends have granted themselves far too many powers since 9/11 etc and all of which wouldnt make a damn difference had it all happen again. Its a convenient justification to make it easier for which ever department has the resposibilities to do something that could be a bit easier if they were able to spy on you, read your emails, listen to your calls, check your bank transactions, etc, etc and now track your every movements. None of which is going to stop a guy with a cash plane ticket and a box knife is it now? I think the balance between privacy and security has now long been broken and ever day it seems to be getting worse. Its only when people like this guy stand up and make a point that it shouldnt be happening that something might ever possibly change.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
and left it at that.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
Too bad you could not get it onto a plane. I wonder how much trouble you would get into taking it or trying to take it on checked luggage?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Well he does have photos of the device, a unique FCC ID that traces back to the FBI, and a plausible story of being pulled over. It's not like he's some paranoid "I was abducted" fool. Last I checked, the legality of inserting a tracking device on someone was questionable.
If you want to see a better picture of why the FBI was interested in him, take a look at this following comment from the last time this was on slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1813728&cid=33839634
Clearly he was a dangerous individual. After all, the FBI never makes mistakes and targets only guilty individuals.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's easy for the FBI to show the legality of their surveillance operation: simply produce the warrant signed by a judge. Clearly it doesn't matter if the suspect knows about it or not, otherwise they wouldn't demand their device back. There is no logical reason at this point not to tell the suspect why he's monitored: if the suspect is guilty, he very well knows why he is monitored anyways, and if he is not, he can probably exactly tell the FBI why it's all a waste of time and money.
Dear FBI, if you have nothing to hide you can clearly show under what jurisdiction you are monitoring people, right?
He did not do that -- it was a friend of his. This means that if you say something stupid, but clearly non-threatening, on the Internet, that the FBI has a right to spy on everyone you know. That, to me, is an extremely troubling precedent to set.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
no.
you've got your facts wrong.
his friend made a comment on reddit about how insane it is to obsess about terrorists blowing up shopping malls.
"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 : /"
that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.
but he did so while being brown which makes it far far more serious.
The question surrounding GPS tracking has been a topic for discussion for a few years now. Last year when this took place, I believe that a California court stated that it was equivalent to an officer tailing an individual, and a vehicle that was on public property could have the device attached to it without a warrant. According to the article, a Federal Appeals court over ruled this and claimed it unconstitutional.
From the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants
"Judges have disagreed over whether search warrants should be required for GPS tracking. Afifi's lawyers say they are filing this lawsuit in hopes of a decision saying that any use of tracking devices without a warrant in the United States is unconstitutional.
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency.""
I agree with the student and his lawyers, I too feel this is unconstitutional, but IANAL. If his actions are truly suspicious and worthy of tracking, it should have been easy to get a judge to sign a warrant for the tracking. But what the government is doing is building intelligence to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since the signing of the Patriot Act, many of our civil liberties have been stripped from us and our own government no longer sees fit to work within the confines of the law that has been built off of the interpretation of our Constitution. The govt. is trying to tie this young man to a terrorist cell, and they don't have the evidence to support it.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
I don't know, like say you are a terrorist and a Unlawful combatant, as such you don't have any rights and put you in to Guatemala Bay prison, torture you there and release you after a few months. If he tries to sue, the Obama administration will pressure the courts to not hear the case and to drop the charges. Oh wait, that was the CIA, o.k. never mind.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with?
If you did it? Harassment and stalking.
If the FBI did it, and it was warranted , nothing. If the FBI did it, and it was unwarranted , nothing, after a very public lawsuit that gets settled.
It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
Let's look at your facts, shall we?
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)
Totally irrelevant to whether the search is legal. If I'm stopped by an officer as part of a traffic stop, refuse the officer entry to my vehicle (which is totally legal to do), and he grabs the keys and searches my vehicle anyways, that doesn't make the search legal despite the fact that it didn't damage the car in the least.
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so
Irrelevant for much the same reason as the last one. Cars on public streets are still considered "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Also, it's more likely the car was parked in his driveway (where he found the device), or a privately owned parking lot.
3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
So? If my phone is bugged without a warrant, just because it's an amateurish job does not mean that the wiretap was legal.
I am officially gone from
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so The government can own property, which makes it private property (ie, schools.) Public property is not owned by the government. It is owned by the public, hence it's name. I think your point is that they did not need to trespass to "install" it, in which case you are probably right. Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same. The real world isn't CSI or 24. Satellites don't track people in real time. Satellites don't track people on demand. The most advanced stuff like they had in Resident Evil: Extinction. The satellite watches predetermined areas as it passes overhead.
Well, probably he just fit one of the crystal ball profiles? Tech student, arab sounding name, all that's missing is getting a solicit call from an organization "under surveillance" (remember, kids, we only track who you call, not what you yack) and suddenly he's very interesting. Even if he told them to get lost and that he's not interested in their imaginary friend bullcrap. And who'd want to fuck virgins anyway?
The point is that tracking and monitoring has become so trivial to execute, technically, that the inhibition threshold has become so low that our TLA friends do it on a hunch base. Before technology allowed that you'd have to put a guy on the person's trail and risk exposure. It's become a lot more trivial now, so why not just bug someone?
Besides, even if his uncle is some madman, have we descended to that again? Your dad's a crook so you are one too?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But isn't the issue here rather whether or not the FBI was legally authorized to wiretap him and not whether they had any putative reasons for doing so? I mean, the police may have many reasons and many of them might be flawed. For example, in some regions of my home country (where I'm not living now) I would be suspicious to the police just because of the way I look and behave and because I'm not talking the local dialect , yet this would not give them sufficient grounds for wiretapping me.
Can the police in the US do anything they want when they appear to have reasons for it? Isn't there some further control, like e.g. an independent judge or panel that has to review the case, before someone can be wiretapped in the US like in most other countries?
No the rational person should ask what is happening here. They should not assume either side is correct off the bat.
The problem is your statistics on use of force are biased. You would need a real study done with impartial judges, this cannot be done as the police would end up short of man power soon. Not because all uses of force are unjustified but because it only takes one to lose your job. I also suspect that your statistics completely ignore unreported uses of force. Surely you see the problem with only asking the potential force user if force was used?
I think you need an updated copy of the Audobon Society Troll Spotting Guide.
GP did have some lovely plumage, though, am I right?
Crap, I guess I have to go check my car now.
(checks skin color)
Oh, wait, I guess I'm good. I'm McVeigh-colored, so I'm obviously safe.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal
Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car) 2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so 3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.
Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.
I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
First, although it is not the central point of my response to your posting, I have to question your statement "Your car is government property if it is in public" - really?? What confused notion of property do you have? Property rights do not transfer to the government just because your property is located in a public rather than a private location. I think you may have meant some kind of diminished expectations of privacy (in this case, with respect to the car) when in public, which is generally held to be true. However, the permissibility of the detailed tracking of an individual's every movement does not necessarily follow as an automatic outcome of those movements being in public.
There is an on-going discussion as to what level of monitoring of an individual's movements constitutes a violation of that individual's right to privacy. A "little bit of monitoring" of an individual's public activities isn't the same as place a GPS tracker on their car and building a record of their exact movements over a long period of time. The principle that a large enough difference in degree is a difference of kind should be considered. The debate revolves around whether a warrant should be required for this type of detailed tracking, and what the criteria should be for a judge signing off on that warrant. According to the the US Consitution, "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The reason why the tracking might be illegal (unconstitutional in this case) is that if it is done without proper adherence to the requirements of the US Constitution (and Federal law), then it is illegal. The FBI (nor any other government entity) does not get to make up the law as it goes along, and must operate under and with respect to the US Constitution and Federal law.
Incidentally, I fit the armchair lawyer definition. I believe that you don't (and shouldn't) need to be a lawyer to understand the US Constitution (Federal law gets murkier because of the constant pawing over it by the fine legal minds that enjoy twisting ordinary statements into amazing circumlocutions). The US Constititution wasn't written to be the basis for arcane incantations; it was written to be the foundation of an agreement between the 13 original colonies about how they would divide power up between themselves and the umbrella government structure they wished to establish, yet keep in check. Everyone should read it. Everyone should understand it. A copy of Black's Law Dictionary is a useful aid to understanding at times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black's_Law_Dictionary
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
I don't believe a warrant is needed to tail someone, but the act of putting a tracker on the person's physical property is what is in contention.
With a tracker, you are followed everywhere you go in the vehicle, but with actual man power, the agent could follow you in a store and observe first hand if your motives are suspicious or just a daily routine.
One can hardly defend against an electronic accuser. Ie: if the tracker info is used against you in a court of law, it's a simple fact and there's no way to say, "well of course I went to that shoppe, it's the only shop that has the bubble gum I like", when the shop you went too may also have stuff that is commonly used in terrorist activities.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
He is talking about general republican citizens' attitude towards government ability, not the actual ability of the government agency or who order it. This has nothing to do with the original article, though.
I'm funny this way, but I refuse to accept responsibility for events that happened 900 years ago. Besides it's not like there isn't enough blame for both sides either.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I think GP's comment on Republicans was simply lamenting based on personal experience. I'm sure Republicans feel the same way in the opposite direction: "When it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".
But when it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability."
So if he drives his vehicle onto private property where he can't simply be visually seen from a road, is this tracking now illegal?
This is why we must have laws which prevent warrantless tracking of any kind.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, I have every expectation that the contents of my bag are private, whether I am in public or not. The exterior of a car is certainly a more difficult situation to reason through, but just being outside of a private residence doesn't mean the government has carte blanche.
And the Patriot act doesn't prove the constitutionality (and thus the ultimate legality of such actions in the U.S.) of anything, it only provides a legal justification.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You don't know. Maybe the reason was a tip from somebody who might have had a grudge. Maybe the reason was something the suspect said at a political meeting. maybe somebody misspelled a name on a form. There are lots of possible reasons, some good, some bad, and some borderline cases that might call for closer oversight of Homeland Security, and the real questions here all depend on those reasons.
You mentioned his travel. If he travelled frequently, always to locations that are considered hotbeds of terrorism, at times that were suspiciously coincidental with some known terrorists, also visiting those locations, that's a pretty good indicator to probe further. If his travel isn't that clear cut an indicator, then maybe what needs to happen here is the FBI needs to refine their process to avoid spending a lot of money and time following up on bad intelligence. But, you don't know that one way or another.
Who is John Cabal?
From the article: "The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency." -This is not a reassuring trend. If the objection was that it was vague and unworkable, that'd be fine. But their objection seems to be that it disallows them from using the GPS without a warrant - which is not fine. Voting for change wasn't supposed to mean "Change my ideals back to what the previous people did."
Also: ". . . the agents who showed up to collect the device were "hostile," threatening to charge Afifi if he didn't immediately cooperate and refusing his request to have a lawyer present" and earlier stated, the agents "demanded their property back." I might just be a first year law student, but if you leave your property in my car, and make no claims to it and abandon it, then it could be mine. Also, the agents only "pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment" probably to avoid the whole warrant issue of collecting it from his apartment. Yet, any time law enforcement shows up, it is my understanding that you don't have to give them any information besides the identify statutes require, like name and maybe ID if your state says so. So I'd sit in the parking lot, and not invite them into my home and tell them I don't want them to search my car without some kind of pretense. Also, I'd turn my smart phone recorder on since we were having the discussions in public.
Perhaps they could have just followed him with a tail to get all the GPS type info, or put a drone over him. I don't think there's an expectation of privacy for the outside of your car, but if it was found in the engine compartment, that might be different. I don't like adding to the car with a device... that seems like some kind of alteration, or trespass to chattels (personal property). Government tort exemptions probably apply for this kind of thing, whether it's constitutional or not.
I'm much more concerned with the adding a device to the personal property than I am the expectation of privacy claim. IF I wanted to follow someone all day, I could collect all the information about their whereabouts.
A tracker is not a wiretap.
Sure, there's lots of use of justifiable force. If you're in a job where the people you interact with will fight, you have the absolute and utter right to defend yourself and you have the obligation to apply the force necessary to complete the task at hand.
That doesn't mean you get a free pass when you taze a guy who is already lying down in a submissive position begging not to be tazed, even if he had previously resisted arrest. That doesn't mean you can zap an 80-year-old woman who is presenting you with verbal (not physical) resistance. That doesn't mean you can form a circle around a black man who tried to run and take turns beating the billy-club bejessus out of him while he lies on the ground screaming in pain.
Are these isolated incidents? Sure.
Are the vast majority of officers honorable people trying to do an honest job under very difficult circumstances? Absolutely.
Might there be a reasonable explanation behind each of these incidents? Sure. Let's hear it. Don't arrest the person who took the video, allow them to freely air it and then present your own case. The first amendment exists for a reason, and just because you have a gun doesn't mean you own the truth. Have your say, but don't try to make it the only say, or people will simply assume you are trying to cover something up.
With power comes responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, turn in your badge and gun on your way out and find a job that you can handle.
If I, as a taxpaying citizen, am going to authorize someone to carry a gun and represent the interests of myself and my fellow citizens to protect us from internal threats, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the person will perform their job as a professional. I know I'm held to that standard in my employment, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same from someone who society has handed "extra" powers to.
That means pulling me over and giving me a ticket if I'm caught speeding, or putting me in jail if I'm caught driving drunk, using reasonable force to restrain me if I resist, and using deadly force if I am a clear and present danger. That also means being public about 'fessing up to mistakes (if I pull out my wallet and you think it's a gun, that could still be a justifiable shooting, even if you kill me and I presented no threat. My wife might not think so at the time, of course. But mistakes happen. If you honestly thought I was a threat, you had the right and duty to protect yourself, and the only way to protect yourself from an armed man is to kill him - injury means he might still use his gun and kill you. Tragic mistakes are tragic, but mistakes. Attempting to cover it up, however, is unacceptable.).
That does NOT include beating the shit out of me for making a snide remark or engaging in unfortunate but nonthreatening behavior. That does NOT include striking me in any way, shape, or form unless it is immediately necessary to protect yourself from injury. That does NOT include abusing, arresting, or even hassling a non-interfering bystander because they were taking video of the event. You are performing a public service, in public, which affects the public. Tell your chief when you get back to the station so he can get your side of the story out.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
And he's right, which is why so many Americans are complete morons. To live in ANY free society, you risk being murdered, or worse, at any time of day or night. Period. The fact that so many idiots now suddenly believe they can be free, and have no risk while being free, means they are ignorantly demanding the removal of everyone's freedoms. Only these same people are too stupid to realize what they are really demanding - a non-free society. And guess what, that's exactly what we see; the destruction, well serious erosion, of liberty and freedom.
Sadly, those who are demanding the absolute protection of America are the most un-American of them all. These people are the real terrorists and all too often are openly embraced by the American public. Sadly, our forefathers are well established about warning us of these tyrants among us.
The reality is, its trivially easy to mass murder people in any free society. And what you linked to is exactly what he's saying. If terrorism is really such a threat, why don't see see mass murders on a daily basis? The commenter's point, which is completely accurate, is since we don't see terroristic mass murders on a daily basis here in the US, the propaganda is full of shit. The public is being mislead and lied to on a daily basis. The people "saving us" from tyranny are the real tyrants.
To be absolutely clear, I absolutely am NOT advocating violence. I'm only pointing out that in a free society, just as people have the freedom to go to work or store, some crazy has the freedom to kill them. And the only way to prevent that crazy from having his freedom is to prevent the rest of us from having ours.
As a side note, with very few exceptions, when you find people saying the US Constitution and our forefather's well known historical positions on life and liberty no longer apply, you've identified either an idiot or a tyrant.
As usual you are missing something ;) My guess is it doesn't work to well when its, gasp, not powered on! After the discovery of the device the victim unplugged the one foot long battery pack from the GPS unit thereby disabling any tracking abilities.
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
From Wikipedia's page on the Crusades:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands.
So, Muslims attacked the Byzantine empire and the Byzantine emperor asks for and receives help from Europe. So, it's Europe's fault for not telling the Byzantine emperor Alexios I to simply give up and die in place?
More:
While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
"....turn the other cheek...." - The Holy Bible
And Christians are the bad guys.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."
So the FBI admits they're doing a lot of GPS tracking without warrants.
Oh, there was plenty more justification than that... like the fact that Muslims were occupying large parts of Spain, Italy, and Greece, oppressing people, and attacking many Christian nations.
"Losers weepers; finders keepers." "Posession is nine-tenths of the laws," and so on. Balls thrown into my yard become my property - same applies with GPS devices found in my driveway.
I hope for your sake you aren't a lawyer, because the law says differently. It technically becomes "abandoned property", and depending on the state there are obligations you must fulfill before it is legally "yours."
1) Attaching something to MY car with magnets could actually be damaging, if you put it in the right place you're probably damaging my storage devices. Even if you don't have any in your car, it's by no means illegal to transport magnet-sensitive devices in your car.
2) Public or not, the CAR is still HIS property. If I get the right to put up a sign in front of my pub on public ground, you cannot mess with the sign legally without my consent.
3) Doesn't really matter after 1 and 2 anymore, and I cannot comment on this since I do not know where it was "hidden". But if it takes an inspection from a car mechanic to be discovered, I wouldn't call it "in plain sight" anymore.
IANAL, and certainly not one in the US, but there are explicit exemptions here for things that may be put on a car. Tickets are an explicit exemption because they are in the interest of the car owner (the alternative is a far more expensive court order sent to your home, so don't remove your windshield wipers in the vain attempt to avoid a ticket, it only gets more expensive). Flyers are already a grey area, so far nobody really bothered to sue afaik. My guess is that the results outweigh the possible legal damages in this case. The FBI isn't a for-profit organization, though, and yes, I'd expect them to be sticking even MORE to the law than anyone else, since they are a member of the law enforcement. I do actually expect these people not only to make sure we uphold the law, but I expect them to uphold it themselves, to letter and spirit.
Tracking is illegal. Sat images take a snapshot of some place, not a person. If a person happens to be in that place, and he can somehow prove that the place was observed because of the person and not the place, he could sue.
Again, IANAL and laws might differ in the place you live in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Welcome to the watch list, citizen.
SSC
You act like the Muslims took no aggressive action during that time . . . they were just as interested as the next group in spreading their ideals by force.
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The problem with your source is that it confirms what the OP said. From EB - "Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion."
Thank you for proving two things - 1) that the OP was telling the truth about Muslims provoking the Crusades and 2) that you're not too bright and have no clue what you're talking about, merely parroting what the TV tells you to say.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to track where a car is going.
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to do anything, and those lowly whiners should just STFU and let them 'do their jobs and protect us'.
"A friend" posted photos of it. So either the FBI is casting a wide net or the friend is probably being tracked as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
They demanded it back? So that's an admission that it's theirs. Idiot move #1. They need to write that sort of stuff off.
The proper answer should be: "My attorney has it. He's having it analyzed by experts."
Next time, have some fun. Stick it to a police car parked at the doughnut shop. Then, make an anonymous call to the cops and report a rumor that some gang members in a couple of black SUVs are looking to knock off a cop to make their rep in the neighborhood.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here's a better idea. Rather than track all the cars, let's track the cars of people with red flags like sending lots of money to the Middle East, having a father with political connections in the Middle East,
Are either of these things illegal ? Are either of these things indicative of illegal behavior ? If you think so, I sure hope you never get racially profiled in the same way. It's bullshit. Unless you want to do the same to people who send money to Sweden and a father with political connections in Sweden. Or Mexico. Or Belgium. Or Japan. But then you are still just a xenophobe.
and having friends who make online posts about bombing malls.
Like in computer games ? Or as a hyperbolic way to point out the idiocy of security theatre ? Point out the idiocy of what the TSA is doing would be enough to get you "flagged" ? And what is a "flag" ? Who oversees these "flags" ? Is a judge ever involved ? We are infringing on an individual's liberties here; there better be judicial oversight. Alternatively, get rid of judges altogether and have the FBI carry out executions at will. Policestates are not that bad if you have nothing to hide.
And as a result of having red flags, the FBI decides to get a little more information about these people, not harassing them, damaging their property, or interfering with their lives in any way.
Other than infringing on their civil liberties and rights, sure. In that case, let's record every phone call ever made and keep it archived for a couple of years. This does not inconvenience people at all, they would not even notice it, nobody would be harassing them about it either. Better keep a log of all internet activity too. This is easily feasible. And it'll help with getting a little more information about people who get flagged in the future. Surely this is an idea we can all get behind ! Nobody would ever abuse this data or these privileges, not at the FBI. The FBI does not make mistakes, of course. And if they do, they can cover it up easily enough.
Yeah, I really have no problem with that. Why are you making a false equivalence between that totally reasonable activity and putting trackers "on all cars in the country" -- suggesting the FBI is just fishing randomly and harassing anybody they see fit.
Because the only reason the latter is not happening is that there are supposedly safeguards like judicial oversight. The FBI will conduct its operations the way it is most efficient and easiest for them to do. If they are allowed to use a tool, they will use it -- doing anything other than that would mean they are not doing their jobs efficiently or well.
Now an argument could be made that what they did here is reasonable. And if that argument can be made, why did they not make it to a judge and get a warrant ? We, as a society, infringe on people's liberties and rights all the time, balancing them against the interests of the society. To make sure this does not get abused by the executive, independent judicial oversight is necessary. That way we all get a fair shake and don't end up in a policestate. In an ideal world, anyway. We are far from an ideal world, and getting farther and farther away.
I think the best response is "Yes, track everyone and prevent crime before it happens. Starting with public representatives to make sure they are not abusing the public. THEN we can talk about tracking everyone else."
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
See here
Basically, the FBI, in demanding it back, is going to have to claim that it's 'mislaid property', which is when you set something down but fail to remember that and walk off. Like if you leave your purse at your table in restaurant. (As opposed to lost property, which is when you drop something and don't notice.)
Sadly for them, for it to 'mislaid', they cannot do it on purpose. Mislaying property requires you to accidentally leave it behind, and as their entire purpose of attaching it to the car was to leave it behind, no, it's not 'mislaid'.
It is, indeed, abandoned property. Leaving something deliberately and knowingly on someone else's property, where you knew it was the entire time (That's the entire point of a GPS tracker, you know where it is.) and made no effort to recover it, is clearly intent to abandon it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Balls throw onto your property do not become yours, idiot. They are clearly lost property. You are required to hold them until someone asks for them, or until a certain amount of time passes, check state law.
However, that is unrelated to the issue here, which is that GPS trackers attached to things are neither 'lost' nor 'misplaced'. They have been clearly placed somewhere deliberately with the intent of them staying them after the person left. (It's not like they were just taking GPS readings and dropped their tracker, or set it down and forgot it.)
Deliberately placing and choosing to leave something on someone else's property is abandoning it. (And is also, strictly speaking, littering.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The difference is that they actually had to access a person's private property (his car) and place an unmarked device in it. Any such devices should be clearly marked as government property _and_ matched up w/ a search warrant # which is on file in the same locale as the vehicle is registered in.
I think it would have been far more interesting if instead of removing it, the mechanic had instead:
- rolled the car out into the public street
- called the local police department to report a suspicious, possibly explosive device in a vehicle
- notified the owner of the car and asked for him to coordinate things with the bomb squad
Moreover, the biggest problem w/ warrant-less placement of such devices is that it fails the equal protection under the law test. Poor people park their cars out on public streets or on driveways --- which can apparently be accessed w/o a search-warrant, while rich people live in gated communities and have their cars stored off the street, often in garages which are pretty much inaccessible w/o a search-warrant.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
ah the great slashdot dissapearance of 2010... it all makes sense now.
it's deeper than we thought!
What would have been the "acceptable" level of invasion of privacy to ensure that this guy isn't some jerk in a sleeper cell? I don't have the answer. I know that this isn't right, but I can't think of a better way to deal with it that would be acceptable to both me, and the fox news watching segment of the population (which seems oddly active in this thread, btw.)
Oh, I don't know, a warrant maybe? That would be a nice little detail.
Nobody is suggesting law enforcement all be fired and go home. What people are saying is that law enforcement is in an inherent position of power, and as such must be held to higher standards AND comply with the checks and balances that the law requires. If not, they are breaking the law, and must suffer criminal penalties themselves. As a point of interest, the judge said you can't do this kind of thing without a warrant. What they did is therefore NOT legal.
Yes, if someone deliberately places a pamphlet on your car, you can claim it as yours. (It's also littering for them to have done that, but whatever.)
You do have to actually claim it, though, it's not automatically yours. You can refuse to claim it as yours and just move it to the trash or something. (Sorta moot WRT a pamphlet, but might be relevant if it was $10,000, and you didn't want to ever 'own' it because you'd have to pay income taxes on it. Yes, silly example, but whatever.)
All laws concerning lost (aka, dropped) or mislaid (aka, set down but you forget to pick it up) property have one overriding rules: They require the property to have been left accidentally.
Leaving something on purpose means it is, by definition, neither lost nor mislaid. There's really no way to argue that a GPS tracker was accidentally left attached to his car, as that was its entire purpose.
So unless it's part of the few specific exceptions in the law, like packages delivered to the wrong address, it's now abandoned property. Property that someone deliberately left on someone else's property.
You can basically treat abandoned property as your own. While some states do let the original owners demand it back within a certain amount of time, they have no recourse if it cannot be returned or is broken.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
An "acceptable" level of invasion of privacy, as you put it, would be to get an appropriate warrant before installing this equipment. That both serves to show that the FBI or other organizations are not just randomly tracking people in the hopes of finding something worth "investigating", but also provides them a defense against law suits like this one; eg: "The GPS device was installed in accordance with this warrant, and in relation to this investigation, and the suit has no standing."
I mean seriously -- if this had happened to me, I'd have gotten rid of the thing, and claim I never knew about it, and it must have fallen off the car.
Keep in mind that they didn't know what it was (hence why they took a picture and posted it). Then the FBI descended (and at that point it's a bad idea to claim that the item you were so curious about was thrown out and destroyed - not to mention the bloody thing was probably still broadcasting).
Now, the *next* time someone finds one of these things on their car - there's no limit to the wackery that can ensue. Off the top of my head:
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself.
Wow, nice way to specifically cherry-pick your conditions (just in the U.S., just successful murders, not attempted murders, kidnappings, cases of arson, and only in the last 10 years, not the full history) to make your point! Do you also, by chance, feed numbers to Fox News for reporting on global warming? But congratulations, you did in fact inspire me to look it up myself.
Here's a better link to give people an overview of the history:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Short version: since 1977, 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 153 cases of assault/battery, 3 kidnappings, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings/arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 stink bomb attacks in the U.S. alone.
Trying to compare that to the one lunatic ever to go the other way is a bit disingenuous. If you have a better list of attacks on forced-birth protestors since 1977, feel free to post it.