Slashdot Mirror


Battle Brews Over FBI's Warrantless GPS Tracking

fysdt writes "The FBI's use of GPS vehicle tracking devices is becoming a contentious privacy issue in the courts, with the Obama administration seeking Supreme Court approval for its use of the devices without a warrant, and a federal civil rights lawsuit targeting the Justice Department for tracking the movements of an Arab-American student. In the midst of this legal controversy, Threat Level decided to take a look at the inside of one of the devices, with the help of the teardown artists at iFixit."

259 comments

  1. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can I stick them under cop cars to know when they are near?

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

      IANAL but my guess would be you would need Supreme Court approval to use such a device without first securing a warrent.

    2. Re:so by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      This is the answer if you get tagged with a device like this. at night in a obscured location, remove it and install it on someone else car. Preferably a car that is the same color and make.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:so by Tx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No need to do that, just watch the video feed from the cop cars instead. Although I suspect in the USA, either could probably get you a jail term.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    4. Re:so by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Drill a hole into the casing, fill the damn thing with butyric acid and seal it again.
      Should provide for some fun once those goons try to find out what's wrong with their toy.

    5. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the Supreme Court rules in favor of planting these devices without a warrant, someone should arrange to put tracking devices on the cars of all 9 justices. That would probably get the ruling reversed very quickly.

    6. Re:so by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      I'd probably build an EMP generator over the weekend with the kids. "Hey kids, you want to know why your dad's not allowed near the microwave or the toaster?"

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

      Drill a hole into the casing, fill the damn thing with butyric acid and seal it again.
      Should provide for some fun once those goons try to find out what's wrong with their toy.

      Well, not only would they get you for mucking about with government property (that you couldn't have known was actually there) ... but, I suspect if you laid such a trap, you might find yourself running afoul of several other laws.

      I suspect you might get yourself a couple of felony charges out of the deal.

      Throw it away, stick it to another car ... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:so by somersault · · Score: 1

      Ooh ooh, is it something to do with his hilariously poor cookery skills?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:so by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soooo... go with dogshit?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:so by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they would find some other charge to make against whoever did the planting and tracking. For example, they probably live behind electric gates and would charge the planter with criminal trespass. What they might charge the tracker with can be left to the imagination... not mine -- I can't think of anything, but potentially anything from "conspiracy" to "terrorism" is quite likely. (Government is immune to charges of terrorism, but if you act in any way against government, guess what you are?)

    11. Re:so by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Soooo... go with dogshit?

      Well, that will let you make a statement without running the risk of inflicting bodily harm and having to pay the legal price for it.

      Dogshit sounds like a nice "FU" without too much in possible ramifications.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:so by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Ooh ooh, is it something to do with his hilariously poor cookery skills?

      To be fair, I thought toasting a pork chop would be a real time saver.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:so by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, not only would they get you for mucking about with government property (that you couldn't have known was actually there) ... but, I suspect if you laid such a trap, you might find yourself running afoul of several other laws.

      I suspect you might get yourself a couple of felony charges out of the deal.

      Throw it away, stick it to another car ... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.

      Scared of what will happen if you resist the governments attempts to track you? Does this sound healthy to you?

      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
      - Thomas Jefferson

    14. Re:so by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Informative

      But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.

      Although the name contains "acid", butyric acid isn't a dangerous corrosive acid. It just smells really bad.

    15. Re:so by anyGould · · Score: 2

      For example, they probably live behind electric gates and would charge the planter with criminal trespass.

      I'm sure they have to stop at red lights eventually. (Or the grocery store, or any old place.)

      Heck, except for the magnets, it's probably fairly inexpensive to build mock trackers and just start spamming them around rich neighborhoods. Let the local cops explain that one away...

    16. Re:so by biek · · Score: 1

      Dogshit sounds like a nice "FU" without too much in possible ramifications.

      It sounds nice until you're accused of exposing Federal agents to a potential biohazard

    17. Re:so by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Butyric acid is not particularly harmful, it's only particularly odoriferous.

    18. Re:so by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Better yet, just hack something up to feed it arbitrary location information. Make it look like your car has taken off into low earth orbit or something more plausible if you want the ruse to go on longer.

    19. Re:so by russotto · · Score: 1

      Throw it away, stick it to another car ... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.

      Note that the OP said "butyric acid". It's basically harmless, but it stinks like vomit.

    20. Re:so by icebike · · Score: 1

      Um, it WAS in the USA. No jail either.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    21. Re:so by losfromla · · Score: 1

      hard drives have a very nice strong magnet in them, thus magnets too would be easy and cheap to acquire (just post on craigslist, offer to sledgehammer them when you pick them up for data security), as long as you know how to use basic hand tools.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    22. Re:so by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Ah yes! Blinking red LEDs from Radio Shack! I once used one of those to make "the internet" for one of my friends.

    23. Re:so by Tx · · Score: 1

      So, one tardy reply begets another. Did I really have to add "...if you're not a paid penetration tester like the guy in the article I linked"? Thought it was kind of obvious.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    24. Re:so by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Well, not only would they get you for mucking about with government property (that you couldn't have known was actually there) ... but, I suspect if you laid such a trap, you might find yourself running afoul of several other laws.

      I suspect you might get yourself a couple of felony charges out of the deal.

      Throw it away, stick it to another car ... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.

      Scared of what will happen if you resist the governments attempts to track you? Does this sound healthy to you?

      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

      Healthy (and I presume you are talking about for our society/country)? No.

      Wise, as an individual, heck yes.

      Smart move for anyone who (like most people do) claim they wish to see our country continue to improve? No.

      Tough balancing act between survival and progress.

  2. God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn Republicans passing laws and continuing abuses like this stripping away our rights. . .

    1. Re:God damn Republicans by bsharp8256 · · Score: 0

      i c wat u did there...

    2. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mod points and have no idea whether to mod this 'Insightful' or 'Troll'.

      Guess I'll just post instead. Someone else's problem now.

    3. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the article states "the OBAMA administration seeking use of devices without warrant". Seems the democrats want to strip away your rights too.

    4. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOSHHHH!

    5. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

    6. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn Republicans passing laws and continuing abuses like this stripping away our rights. . .

      Yeh, no crap. The difference is, if it WAS a Republican, the media and the left wing would be up in arms...

      Now, all we hear are the echos of silences.

    7. Re:God damn Republicans by couchslug · · Score: 0, Troll

      Demublican and Repocrat differ on SOCIAL issues (other than the power of the State when each is in office) and the Second Amendment, but not much else.

      Too bad Flight 93 didn't drill Congress. One set of scumbags taking out the other = win.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the FBI has placed a GPS tracker on that woosh above your head...

    9. Re:God damn Republicans by zill · · Score: 1

      Too bad Flight 93 didn't drill Congress. One set of scumbags taking out the other = win.

      That was the original plan, but Al-Qaeda was afraid of getting sued by Tom Clancy.

    10. Re:God damn Republicans by zill · · Score: 1

      Was that a joke flying by or was that a surveillance drone? Kinda hard to tell them apart just by the sound signature.

    11. Re:God damn Republicans by gknoy · · Score: 1

      In seriousness, I think the main reason it didn't happen was more that the passengers on the plane were heroes. Or, that's the most pausible explanaiton to me. :)

    12. Re:God damn Republicans by 2names · · Score: 1

      Q) What do you call a tracking device placed in a Republican's shoe?

      A) A SWOOSH.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    13. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most cases in which laws being passed people contribute to Obama I would disagree in that His portion of the government does not make or pass laws. Considering that this is police action, it does fall onto his lap. But, as Obama can not sign a bill into law (pending it is a limited approval for it in congress), Congress could always threaten to tighten the funding to get it to stop. Sadly, I doubt any of them want to be campaigned against saying that they want to cut funding to police.

    14. Re:God damn Republicans by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Thats real classy, because you differ with some folks on policy means they should be killed.

    15. Re:God damn Republicans by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Honestly I doubt that most of them are scumbags at all. Not really anymore than the general population. The problem is that to get past the primary you must play to the base which tends to be extreme. Only the real fanatics are willing to go out and beat the bushes and they are the majority that vote in the primary.
      And then you have the population as a whole. The majority of people care most about their family. It is human nature after all. So that in large means caring about their job so they provide for them and caring about their safety. They do not care that the government is going to plant a GPS tracking device on some Muslim that they don't know because he did some things that looked suspicious. They might even think that is a good thing after all what harm did come to him? The senate in this case does reflect the will and fears of the people. I would guess that most of the people that are up in arms on Slashdot are young and without a family. Not all of you but a big chunk. When you are young and do not have a family to worry about causes and principle seem more important.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:God damn Republicans by erroneus · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Wreckage of that flight was found miles away from the main crash site. It was shot down unless you can think of another way for that to happen. Initial CNN news reports claimed debris was found up to 5 miles from the main crash site. I was unemployed and glued to the TV set at the time. I didn't miss anything that day.

    17. Re:God damn Republicans by peragrin · · Score: 2

      You should learn physics sometimes, and maybe a map.

      the crash of flight 93 was spread out over an area of less than a mile. The miles part comes from people using bad maps near a town border.

      This was throughly debunked 9.5 years ago. please try again.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    18. Re:God damn Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean like the massive uproar we heard for at least the 5 years this was in eefect under Bush?

      If a law is passed that one political party can use, then it should be ok for the other party to use it. If it's not ok for the other party to use the law, then it should not have been passed in the first place.

      It still is rather annoying that things that Bush did freely are attributed as new Obama policies. Because I didn't like the policies then doesn't mean I like the policies now.

    19. Re:God damn Republicans by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At forty, I'm not exactly young anymore, and I *do* have a family. Nevertheless, I am still very much an idealist, who believes that cause and principle are very, very important. To some degree, cause and principle are so important to me *because* I have a family. I don't want my daughter to grow up living in a tyrannical police state, and consequently, I work to create change. Wasn't it John Adams who said, "I study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy and that their children may study painting, poetry and music."?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:God damn Republicans by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2

      Bah! Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory!

    21. Re:God damn Republicans by memnock · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to tell if one of these is attached to your vehicle? Something that detects the strong magnets used for attaching maybe?

    22. Re:God damn Republicans by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " I would guess that most of the people that are up in arms on Slashdot are young and without a family. Not all of you but a big chunk. When you are young and do not have a family to worry about causes and principle seem more important."

      I said not all. It is very difficult to say all about anyone. It has more to do with trends. Funny thing is that I actually agree with the people that don't like this warrant less tracking and do want it to not happen.
      I do not fear a tyrannical police state yet. I feel that is a long way down the road. But honestly I will bet that privately you have more in common with the senate than you suspect. You see that is the rub. Those that may want the tyrannical state you fear so much will use the same tool that tyrants always use.
      Vilification. Once vilification starts communication ends. Both sides will stop listening when the yelling and name calling starts. IMHO is to try and understand more. You and I may disagree on a subject but the second that I just dismiss you as a fool then I no longer have the ability to educate you to my point of view. I just feel that the best course is to ask myself why I might feel the way someone that I disagree with feels that way. If I understand that then maybe I can explain to them why I feel the way I do so that they understand.
      Of course I am only human. Got into a big fight of Obama not wanting to show the Osama pictures. Someone tried to tell me that a picture on TV was proof to which I replied "Ever seen Forest Gump and Apollo 13?" Who knew that Tom Hanks got to meet President Johnson and flew too the moon!
      That ended up as a no win I fear.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:God damn Republicans by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That's called "war". It's a standard method of human dispute resolution when peaceful means are exhausted.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:God damn Republicans by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      that's bipartisanship for you--republicans increase entitlements and democrats attack civil liberties. it's called "governing to the center".

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    25. Re:God damn Republicans by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      from the summary: with the Obama administration seeking Supreme Court approval for its use of the devices without a warrant

      Yep the republicans are sure responsible for continuing abuses...OH WAIT

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    26. Re:God damn Republicans by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      If the dispute is amongst citizens of the same nation, its known as a "civil war". A little bit uglier term, for a lot of people.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    27. Re:God damn Republicans by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      What do you call it when you advocate the killing of civilian legislators in cold blood?

    28. Re:God damn Republicans by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Probably nothing as effective as visually inspecting the underside of your car for strange objects attached to it.

    29. Re:God damn Republicans by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Domestic policy?

      I don't know. I'm assuming you were trying to passive-aggressively show me how wrong I am but I'm a bit confused as to how you think what you said has to do with what I said? Maybe you meant to reply to the parent of my post?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    30. Re:God damn Republicans by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we did that to a few Republican senators, had problems with altitude axis noise of 2" amplitude at 2 Hz whenever they were in a men's room stall, never could figure that one out

  3. Oppression, not violation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Violation of privacy is something committed by a party of equal power to yourself. When government commits injustice, the correct term is oppression. We aren't talking about a nosey neighbor peeking out the window at you, or even a dedicated stalker. We are talking about the organization holding the special right to employ coercion against you as their means -- the most dangerous force that could possibly exist. Needless to say, the situation is completely, utterly different.

    1. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Be glad you can even do something about it. In the UK all vehicles are tracked all the time by automatic numberplate recognition using images from traffic cameras. They don't have them quite everywhere yet but they are working on that.

      It seems that it is easier to get away with oppression if you do it to everyone all the time. The FBI's mistake was to target individuals.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      the most dangerous force that could possibly exist.

      You don't know the power of the dark side. ;)

    3. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Now, now! We can see you haven't been ingesting your rations of nationalism or racism. Where is the trust for OUR people when dealing with THEM? If you can't trust those in charge here, then who can you trust? All order will break down! We will have cats sleeping with dogs, and bad poetry being recited in supermarket lines.

      I for one welcome our new overlords! You had better polish those boots and let those heals snap when you come to attention.

      Have you seen Kile? He's about this tall?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by ThreeDeeNut · · Score: 1

      the most dangerous force that could possibly exist.

      You don't know the power of the dark side. ;)

      i dunno, i could see (insert your president here) being under the control by a sith lord... maybe we are in the midst of episode 1,2 & 3... In a galaxy not so very far away at all.

    5. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like that is used here. In Arlington, VA some police cars have two angled cameras mounted on the back of the car. As they drive around the city the cameras scan for license plate numbers. According to the sales brochure of one of these products' websites (lots of cities around the country seem to use them, now), they dramatically increase the number of arrests for outstanding warrants.

      I wouldn't be surprised if there are fixed cameras doing the same thing, and/or also just recording traffic patterns for whatever future nefarious purposes the gov't has in mind.

    6. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Be glad you can even do something about it. In the UK all vehicles are tracked all the time by automatic numberplate recognition using images from traffic cameras. They don't have them quite everywhere yet but they are working on that.

      Most people don't know this, but Houston's red-light cameras also do that. EMS and Police have live access to the database, and can issue queries along the lines of "Which intersection last observed license plate XXX-YYY?" whenever they wish.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    7. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      From what I read in Hansard the scheme is only in effect in parts of Yorkshire and is being used ostensibly to look for uninsured drivers. Ever thought of applying for a job at the Mail?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    8. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's almost true. As long as you KNOW that you're being tracked, and that EVERYONE is tracked, that's fine. I'm not saying it is preferable to actually having privacy, but at least if EVERYONE is subject to it, it limits the ability of people to target individuals for persecution.

    9. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      Good thing the redlight cameras were voted out at the end of last year.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    10. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's a big conceptual difference between tracking vehicles on public roads (where the traffic cameras are) by external means, and a tracking device installed in a vehicle, which tracks it everywhere.

      It's not illegal for me to stand by the road and snap vehicles as they drive by - their presence in that particular point on the road is public, so there's no expectation of privacy. The license plates are public also. It's not fundamentally different with traffic cameras.

    11. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by toddestan · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, the only thing they can't do is have the cameras issue tickets. They can still leave them on to track you if they wanted.

    12. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is a good example of where technology changes things. Yes, anyone can snap a picture of a street with cars in it. The police take it to another level by recording everything all the time and compiling the information into a vast database which they can fish though at will.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Oppression, not violation of privacy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nope, it is UK wide. A police officer was on TV a couple of years ago talking about how "denied criminals the use of the roads".

      In fact it has already been abused, but I can't find a link to the story right now. The BBC covered it among many others. A couple of pensioners were stopped on their way up to London to join a peaceful protest and their car was searched under anti-terrorism laws. The police had put their number plate on a list of known "troublemakers", despite the fact that they were just peaceful protesters who committed no crime and complied fully with the law. The system flagged their car up and the police moved to intercept them.

      Orwell wasn't far off, he just didn't foresee machines doing much of the watching and recording every detail.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. If I had a car... by RadiantPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I would be checking it right now.

    1. Re:If I had a car... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the off chance that you weren't being sarcastic: warrants are handed out pretty freely to law enforcement when they can show any semblance of a reason to suspect someone. If it's an emergency, they can be issued retroactively. If the FBI claims the need to track without a warrant, the logical conclusion to draw is that they are tracking at least some people without good reason - if they had good reason, they could get a warrant, after all.

    2. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? Apparently even mechanics don't usually find them. There are a LOT of nooks and crannies under your car. The only reason this has really come to light is because of one ridiculously poorly-executed incident where it was hidden very poorly.

      Hell, if they knew you would be away for a day (taken any flights recently?), they could take the car apart and hide it in your door or something where no one would EVER find it.

    3. Re:If I had a car... by Choin · · Score: 0

      I don't want a GPS device on my vehicle without a search warrant. It's tampering with my property [for starters] and an invasion of my privacy. It's a power that's obviously being abused. You would know this if you bothered to read this article.

    4. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is a tired argument and a tired saying!

      The old "if your not doing anything wrong. . .blah blah blah" statement is an interrogation tactic.
      Many soldiers have given everything to maintain your rights.

      Now for another tired saying. . . .(and soon to be obosolete with the current mentality)
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

      Sigh, after this post I'll have to check my car. . ..

    5. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving to my local NRA meetings...

    6. Re:If I had a car... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Informative

      The mechanics weren't looking very hard. IAAM (I Am A Mechanic).

      Of course the quick way to find trackers would be to use a freq counter with an antenna and scan you car with the car battery disconnected to eliminate any interference from powered automotive circuits.

      Time for a cheap open source RF sniffer?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:If I had a car... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

      Well, drove my car to work on the usually route, parked it at work for the day, drove back home, went to my local petrol station. And all of that I don't want law enforcement to know, because it is none of their f***ing business.

    8. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod +1.

      It's BECAUSE I have nothing to hide that I deny you your illegal search and seizure.

    9. Re:If I had a car... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      These trackers can probably operate passively. Simply sitting there, collecting location information until an agent with the proper equipment activates it and dumps the data.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:If I had a car... by PPH · · Score: 1

      and what are you doing that would warrant the FBI's eye, and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

      I'm visiting clients. But one of my competitors (a big national franchise) isn't above slipping a crooked FBI agent a few bucks to track me and give them a list of people I visit.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:If I had a car... by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter what he's doing. The US constitution says the government has no right to invade the privacy of a free citizen w/o a warrant which has to have probable cause and judicial approval. These warrantless trackers are blatantly unconstitutional.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    12. Re:If I had a car... by somersault · · Score: 1

      That doesn't invalidate his questions.. I mean I wouldn't want one of these things on my car either, but only because it adds weight, drag, and is pretty damn cheeky. It would be a complete waste of government time to monitor me anyway.

      *wink wink*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:If I had a car... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Constitution, that pesky thing people like to parade out when they want to be seditious, when are we going to toss that old thing out? Seriously, didn't the people who wrote that own slaves? And in fact, didn't they own slave children as well? Then if they had child slaves, then how could we still take them seriously? For the children, lets get rid of it at last.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    14. Re:If I had a car... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      and what are you doing that would warrant the FBI's eye, and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

      The sheriff's wife for starters.

    15. Re:If I had a car... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      and what are you doing that would warrant the FBI's eye, and what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

      Hey, we're not talking about warranted searches here. If the FBI suspects something, they should present their evidence to a magistrate, and get a proper Warrant. Otherwise, they should piss off.

    16. Re:If I had a car... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Taking apart your car means entering the car and they do need a warrant for that

    17. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is imperative that Slashdot know all about it, eh?

    18. Re:If I had a car... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

      Living my life. I do not want law enforcement agencies knowing what I do over the course of a day. Who knows what sort of surprise laws, bizarre readings of the law, or overzealous cops and prosecutors one can wind up facing? Better safe than sorry; the point of the 4th amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is to protect us from tyranny, and we need that sort of protection these days.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    19. Re:If I had a car... by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      These trackers can probably operate passively. Simply sitting there, collecting location information until an agent with the proper equipment activates it and dumps the data.

      It's unlikely they can run the GPS receiver without leaking the local oscillator frequency. So a frequency counter should be able to find it.

      If I found one of these on my car, I'd consider it my patriotic duty to place it on a vehicle I spend more time on. Namely, the train I ride to work.

    20. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you're a suspected terrorist. They'll just get one retroactively.

    21. Re:If I had a car... by losfromla · · Score: 1

      lol! someone mod this funny! please...?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    22. Re:If I had a car... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      So my privacy is only important if I'm hiding something? False.

      I feel my privacy is important. Full stop.

      If there is no reason to track me, then why waste the money doing so?

      I hate it when people imply that I must be a criminal if I value my privacy.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    23. Re:If I had a car... by Cwix · · Score: 2

      If there is no reason to search me why do it?
      If there is no reason to track me then why do it?

      If I am a suspect, then please feel free to get a warrant. Otherwise fuck off.
      Your comment was the worst I read today.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    24. Re:If I had a car... by somersault · · Score: 1

      You can easily be a reasonable suspect with nothing to hide. It's not because you have nothing to hide that you deny the search, otherwise logically if you had something to hide, you would allow them to search you. AC was trying to sound all deep and shit, but it just came off as sounding stupid to me.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm doing it but this is a police state. You can go to jail for a very long time for growing unauthorized plants. There are plenty of illegal but otherwise sane things people might do that can still ruin their lives.

    26. Re:If I had a car... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I'll agree AC could have worded the comment better.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    27. Re:If I had a car... by http · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I need to state this explicitly (rather than modding you down, because your comment is already at -1): you're a fucking idiot. First, if I were doing something that would warrant attention from the FBI, they could damn well go to a judge and get a warrant filled out. I want to insure my car, there's paperwork involved. You want to sell your car, there's paperwork involved. They want to investigate someone beyond simply looking at them as they pass by, there's paperwork involved. Suck it up, princess. Second, living my private life, is what. Law enforcement officers are, in the end, on my payroll, and I want them spending their time investigating crimes, not wasting time studying my activities.
      Your attitude was discredited centuries ago, what dinosaur-laden tropical valley have you been living in?

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    28. Re:If I had a car... by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Well, in the strictest form of the word, p[privacy is about the RIGHT to hide something - there is no such thing as "nothing" to hide since privacy by construction is purely concealment. IMO the real framing of the question is "So privacy is only important if I'm doing bad / illegal things?"

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    29. Re:If I had a car... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Oh the irony. It kills. Though notice AC didn't tell us which route, which petrol station, ect, so unless you know who that particular AC is (which I imagine is why it is posted "Anonymous"), that information is rather useless.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    30. Re:If I had a car... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure an amendment was written about this....

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    31. Re:If I had a car... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      This is true. I heard somewhere (hell it was probably on slashdot) that every single US citizen has broken at least one law in their lifetime, simply because of the confusing law code that exists in this country today.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    32. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard this before - if you have nothing to hide, you would let us search the house. Only those with something to hide need fear.

    33. Re:If I had a car... by http · · Score: 1

      I am astonished. Being concerned about the efficiency with which my tax dollars are spent puts me in the T.F.H. brigade? I can't mock your intelligence sufficiently; I'd need a team.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    34. Re:If I had a car... by Goboxer · · Score: 1

      If I am a reasonable suspect, they can get a fucking warrant. Its not like its hard, and they can do it without compromising a damn thing on their part. So the only possible explanation they want to keep an eye on me is because they can't legally do anything. Which puts in squarely in the realm of the illegal.

    35. Re:If I had a car... by Goboxer · · Score: 1

      and what are you doing that would warrant the Thought Police's eye, and what are you doing that you do not want Big Brother to know?

      Fixed that for you.

    36. Re:If I had a car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://wvcriminaldefenseattorney.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/why-should-you-refuse-to-talk-with-the-police/

      Why should you refuse to talk with the police?

      You should refuse to talk with police because just about every darn thing you could ever do or think is illegal somewhere at some place and time. And if it isn't, the police may say you do something else that is illegal.

      Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary, but it has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes. And these laws are scattered in over the 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate by reference the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even well less settled, but the American Bar Association believes there are nearly 10,000.

      For instance, 16 U.S.C. Section 3370 makes it a federal offense for any person to âoeimport, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law or regulation of any state or any foreign law.

      Many people have been prosecuted federally under this statute, which can make it a federal crime to possess a lobster which is too short under some state's law, or to possess a bony fish from Honduras, which is prohibited in Honduras (though not in the U.S.) â" and so on and so forth. And this is only 1 out of approximately 10,000. And this doesn't even include West Virginiaâ(TM)s lengthy list of state crimes.

    37. Re:If I had a car... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      In texas it's illegal to row a wagon across a prairie. There are whole websites set up to ridiculous laws like that (in France it's illegal to name your pig Napoleon). Most people laugh at them but when someone really wants to throw the book at you and put you away for life, if they have a good understanding of the legal system it's much easier to do than it should be.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    38. Re:If I had a car... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      no your not worried about your tax dollars, this entire thread is about your privacy, and how they are going to track all of us OMFUD, dont go changing the topic

      and go get your team, its been a while since I laughed at a group of retards

    39. Re:If I had a car... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I didn't say those with nothing to hide should consent to illegal searches either. I just said that having nothing to hide is not the reason to reject the illegal search. You should reject it if you have nothing to hide, but you should still reject it if you have something to hide. The reason to reject it is that it's invasive, and you don't have to comply if you don't want to.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    40. Re:If I had a car... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Nobody has said any different.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. So... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat we faced before. Glad that killing the guy accomplished so much.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:So... by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Osama bin Laden

      Who??

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:So... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat we faced before. Glad that killing the guy accomplished so much.

      You shouldn't expect magic in stories without wands or spells. SEAL teams aren't known for using either.

      Bin Laden will be replaced as leader, and Al Qaeda will continue for quite some time to come. Hopefully it will be in a much weakened if not terminal condition. In the mean time, they are going to kill a lot more people in pursuit of their goal of turning the world into a Muslim ruled super state - the Caliphate.

      Bin Laden's demands: in short, convert to Islam, ditch the American Constitution and live under his version of Sharia law, or else.

      There is a significant danger of far more people being killed if the public isn't clear on this point.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you're right, let's go unkill him since killing him didn't do anything useful. He was the only bad guy in the world after all.

    4. Re:So... by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are
      > left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat
      > we faced before.

      *sigh* If you followed the news, or read the papers, or a book, or knew history, or were alive on 09/12/2001 (you don't seem like you are nine years old, so that's one less excuse) or on October or November 2001 you would, at _least since then_ known that this war was known, is known to last several generations. That's 20 to 40 years, babe. *ummk* You know, like the Cold War.

  6. I Wonder Why They Would Do That by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Since these days most people carry a GPS unit voluntarily anyway. If you want to watch someone's day-to-day movements, it'd probably be easier to track his cell phone movements than to duct tape a rather obvious unit to the underside of his car.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By placing the tracker on the car, they get to use a loophole to track someone. If the car attached GPS had the same requirements as monitoring the GPS device that we carry, they would opt for the one we carry every time.

    2. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by torgis · · Score: 2

      That would involve data from his mobile carrier, which would involve the hassle of going to court and getting a warrant. You know, that whole pesky "due process of law" thing that they used to use for suspected criminals. Much easier to just slap this on someone's car, gather data, and *then* get a warrant. Or use the information for more sinister means. Or whatever you want, really. That's the beauty of warrantless police activities. It's limitless and they're accountable to nobody.

    3. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's limitless and they're accountable to nobody.

      No, they are always accountable to the people. Except it takes something like Egypt or Libya to get rid of them once they gain so much power. But eventually the people always wake up and shake off the yoke when it bothers them too much. It's a repeated lesson throughout human history

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by khr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      pesky "due process of law" thing

      I was in Pune, India about ten years ago when one police precinct in the city got assigned a new chief inspector. It was the Deccan area, where there's a huge number of colleges and universities.

      The newspaper had an interview with the new chief inspector (it was a big deal because she was the first woman in the position) and one of the questions they asked her was what factors complicated policing that precinct. Her answer was "there's a lot of educated people who know their rights."

    5. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the Syrians would agree with you at the moment. Libyans neither for that matter. The people can *try* to make the gov't accountable but it's not always possible.

    6. Re:I Wonder Why They Would Do That by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3

      You don't have to go to a foreign country to hear police officers saying those sorts of things. I have heard law enforcement officials at various levels of government here in the United States complaining about people knowing and exercising their rights, and demanding more power to undermine and counter those rights.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  7. Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The linked article shows a woefully out of date tracking device. A much more current version of a gps tracker teardown is shown here:

    http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/1

  8. Ebay, Here We Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a rule... "If it comes into my house or my office, I control it.". Since my vehicles come into my house (garage), I control them as well. All I need to do now is find out what the going rate on Ebay is for a GPS tracking device... It's mine baby!

    1. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Screw that, I would head down the the nearest marina and attach it to someone's boat lol. Or another car.... maybe a truck trailer....

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Too bad for you when you run into a judge who has never heard about your "rule" and decides to throw you in jail for tampering/destroying government property, interfering with an investigation, or whatever else they feel will stick. See your rules don't matter. The only rules that matter are the ones enforced by the government (or the mob).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by PPH · · Score: 2

      OK, so it was a 2011 Bentley. But I was tired of it. So I took it down to the local car recycler and they put the whole car into the crusher. Sorry About that GPS box you folks stuck on it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Destruction of government property.

      --
      Do you even lift?

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

    5. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by Amouth · · Score: 3, Funny

      just get the FBI to provide proof of ownership.. you know a receipt or something :).

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    6. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I think a helicopter would be pretty awesome to attach it to, preferably a military or medevac.

      But sadly, I wouldn't want to tamper with someone else's vehicle. I'd probably build a small raft and float it down the Rio Grande river.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    7. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      My suggestion:

      Call the local media first. Tell them you've found what looks like a pipe bomb on the underside of your car. Call the cops and tell 'em the same thing. Don't mention the media call.

      Optimally, they both show up and the cops get to explain what the device is, and what it's for. I'd love to see the sound bites from that.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    8. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Though, they know where you live already.... bring it inside the house, and just leave it sitting in your living room.... or attach it to the chimney.

      OOOh.... better yet... mail it around! Just toss it in an express mail box, and mail it somewhere fun... like... some tiny little town in Alaska.

      Even better, get a mailing box, put it inside... beat up the box a bit, tape it all around the seams on the outside, and put a small dab or two of oil on it.... address it to a local FBI main office, and send it along. Say nothing else, do nothing else... use a fake return address, and inside a small note "I believe you dropped this"

      Before doing this, do take out their sweet batteries and replace them with cheapo D-Cells.... I bet they use the damned thing again without checking.

      Honestly, that would be my biggest score, the sweet batteries.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I find a unmarked box on my car, and I run it over.. well oops.

      I had no way of knowing who it belonged to, and was under the assumption that it was mine because it was attached to my car. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

    10. Re:Ebay, Here We Come by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Apparently those batteries put out 3.6V. I doubt the device would run off of standard 1.5V D-cells. However, I could probably wire up enough AA cells to get the proper voltage and shove them in there if I had to.

  9. tinfoil hats need not apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Merely looking at this might be reason enough to get a chance for a close-up personal inspection of your own device.
    I love my country but fear my government.

  10. Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clearly the solution to finding one of these is to report it as a suspected car bomb. After all, if people can decide that a giant Lite-Brite is a bomb then surely a bunch of metal boxes magnetically attached to a car should merit the same level of attention and freak-out...

    1. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bomb squad will just come out, evacuate the neighborhood, and blow up your car

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Clearly the solution to finding one of these is to report it as a suspected car bomb. After all, if people can decide that a giant Lite-Brite is a bomb then surely a bunch of metal boxes magnetically attached to a car should merit the same level of attention and freak-out...

      Getting the bomb squad to blow up your car "safely" is probably not the best way to deal with a GPS tracker.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    3. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      It is if this happens often enough that it becomes inconvenient to society, and the FBI is held accountable for the loss in wages / productivity and the expense of replacing the destroyed vehicles.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    4. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod-points? :)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    5. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The form factor WOULD make a perfectly reasonable one for a vehicle bomb.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurance co would be responsible for replacing it. The FBI would probably laugh at your civil lawsuit, and the inconvience would largely be yours.

    7. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      ...the FBI is held accountable for the loss in wages / productivity and the expense of replacing the destroyed vehicles.

      Let us know how that works out for you.

    8. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took them!

    9. Re:Find one? Call it in as a suspected car bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead. My garage is attached to my neighbors and I hate them. And my car is 10 years old.

      Also, there would probably be damage to several of my other neighbor's homes including mine. I need to make sure my homeowner's insurance is paid up first.

  11. Should be required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government should mandate the presence of these in all vehicles, and when they become miniaturized enough to the size of a grain of rice, implanted at birth as a prerequisite to being an American citizen. Tracking would be done automatically by a centralized authority and paid for by sharing location information with corporations and advertisers so there is no tax burden to the American people.

    1. Re:Should be required. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      paid for by sharing location information with corporations and advertisers so there is no tax burden to the American people.

      Yeah because those corporations just invent the money to pay for ads, right? It's not like the American people are paying for the ads when they buy products from those companies... /sarcasm

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Should be required. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Universal vehicle GPS tracking is coming.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Electronic Counter Measures.... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So would it be ok to place a GPS tracker on every police car you find, I bet not and while betting I bet that if you were caught trying to put such a thing on a police car you would get shot.

    My advise on this is quite simple, if you find a little black box, an antenna and a battery pack on the underside of your car, call the local police and tell them you found exactly what you found under your car, a bundle with wires coming out of it (the battery pack) a black box attached to it (the GPS receiver) and an antenna and your afraid to touch it. Make certain your insurance is paid up.

    Call the local news as well, its a bomb threat for certain but this is an economics game, they can't afford to follow everyone with agents so its cheaper to track everyone of interest and sort it out later, make this cost them as much as possible, PR spin isn't cheap, nor is replacing GPS devices that keep 'falling' off the car (rip the wires, leave parts of it on the car) at some point it becomes cheaper to either follow you with Agents, or stop following you.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    1. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

      PR spin isn't cheap, nor is replacing GPS devices that keep 'falling' off the car (rip the wires, leave parts of it on the car) at some point it becomes cheaper to either follow you with Agents, or stop following you.

      Based on what I read in Wired's breakdown, the devices themselves are pretty cheap. Mostly decade old COTS parts with a little custom assembly. The expense would come, as you say, with the cost of sending Agents out to stick another one to your vehicle.

      But certainly if I found one of these under my car my first call would be to the police, describing exactly what it is I'm looking at. It might be a GPS tracker, it might be a bomb. I don't know what it is other than it is black, has antennas, and I have no idea why it's been attached to my vehicle. I know how my local police would respond to a call like that, and the news cameras won't be far behind.

    2. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Local police will be using them too, so they will probably only show up to arrest you for tampering with evidence. The news as usual won't report a thing.

    3. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...
      you could just find a gps repeater (they do sell them and you can make one). Put it right above the tracking device, set it to the same position all the time.

    4. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rule letting the FBI do it does not extend legality to local or state police, who will still be bound by their local and state laws.

      Which is not completely reassuring, I know.

    5. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do bear in mind that the device in the Wired breakdown was removed from the suspect's car six years ago, and was probably several years old at the time; so, we're talking circa 2000 technology in use in 2005; we don't know what the FBI is replacing lost devices with today. That said, obviously the tracker in the breakdown does the trick, and it's possible they're still using the same, or equivalent cheaper components. My bet is the batteries are the most costly out of the whole kit.

    6. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

      The batteries will almost always be the largest part of this, even if the tech gets smaller most devices have limited run time without large batteries; your argument is valid though, an iphone turned on and capture tower/GPS data might be enough to find you. Either way, my point is to make this as public and expensive as possible, 24/7 monitoring should be reserved for folks that are already under a criminal investigation, people that *might* be criminals should not be monitored in this fashion. either way I suspect this will still look somewhat like a foreign device attached to my car. think of it as a gift, much like the flyer placed on your windshield and treat it as such. might be fun to attach a wifi cam and catch them 'servicing' this device.....

      --
      Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    7. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm I doubt it, unless you live in a large city. And these are custom FBI devices it seems, so even metro cops wouldn't likely have them. And, even if they did, they wouldn't know what it was for sure until after they came and looked at it.

    8. Re:Electronic Counter Measures.... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The FBI has a long reach. There are lots of federal offenses, and they are likely to be investigating "organized crime" in the form of drug-dealing gangs in your community right now.

  13. Send them on a wild goose chase by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I found one of these attached to my car I think I'd simply throw it in a box and mail it somewhere. Perhaps to an FBI office on the other side of the country. Let the FBI blindly trace the path it takes through the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.

    Either that or I'd let a dog run around the neighborhood with it.

    1. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by dredwerker · · Score: 2

      If I found one of these attached to my car I think I'd simply throw it in a box and mail it somewhere. Perhaps to an FBI office on the other side of the country. Let the FBI blindly trace the path it takes through the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.

      Either that or I'd let a dog run around the neighborhood with it.

      If I found one of these on my car - I would put it on hackaday for a bit of reverse engineering fun.

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    2. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Amouth · · Score: 1

      thats what i was thinking (kinda of) we know it transmits.. but question is how well did the FBI do it? is it blind?? can you spoof it.. can you start broadcasting and send false data - maybe start listening and see other cars being tracked? spoof that?

      Another fun one is calling the FCC on the Agents.. i really doubt they have a licence for it.. yea sure they won't get find or anything like that but it's just another hassle.. if your bored - i can't thing of anything better than making the FBI waste it's time more than it already does.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you follow the news stories, one of the people this happened to did basically this. He was charged with obstruction of justice (or some such nonsense).

      Not only are they allowed to put a GPS tracker on you, you aren't allowed to remove it.

    4. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by inviolet · · Score: 1

      If I found one of these attached to my car I think I'd simply throw it in a box and mail it somewhere. Perhaps to an FBI office on the other side of the country. Let the FBI blindly trace the path it takes through the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.

      Either that or I'd let a dog run around the neighborhood with it.

      Keep in mind, the current generation of GPS tracking devices look NOTHING like the model they dissected for FTA. The FBI said so when the device was first found on that poor student's car -- a statement along the lines of "If it was one of our modern units, he never would've found it". The guy who said that probably got a reprimand afterwars, too.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    5. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Government agencies are not beholden to the FCC - that's for us peons. They have the NTIA, which does essentially the same thing as the FCC, but for the federales. In the rest of the world, 433MHz is an ISM band. Here in the US we see importers trying to get the FCC to allow those ISM devices into the US - no thanks! They will crush the Amateur 70cm band.

      That frequency is smack-dab in the middle of an Amateur Radio band (secondary allocation), and is also used by the feds for 'radiolocation'. See page 491 of this PDF for the allocations. Also look at the footnotes - the interesting one is G8 - "Low power Federal radio control operations are permitted in the band 420–450 MHz."

      I'm curious about the actual operation of this device - since the 433 MHz transmitter is low power, There are three choices I can think of:

      1) The device transmits blindly and there a network of receivers/repeaters deployed that we the people don't know about.
      2) The unit is interrogated individually for a data dump. This implies that an FBI agent has to be relatively close to the car to read the data.
      3) The device only listens on 433 MHz for commands to turn on/off logging, and the data dump is done on retrieval of the device.

      Ideas?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    6. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too easy. I'd make sure that it ended up somewhere really, really difficult to get to, preferably with plenty of mud and worse along the route. Or maybe a boat, although it would be tempting to put it on a politician's car and see what happens.

      It would also be interesting to see if the signal is encrypted and whether it could be spoofed.

    7. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree, that old unit is huge. A modern unit is still limited by antenna size and battery size. They're not going to get much smaller than a 35mm film canister and you can buy those loggers off the shelf.

    8. Re:Send them on a wild goose chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, we wouldn't drive to random places, so that the tracking device gets misleading data, would we?
      Will the authorities use the trackers to find stolen cars?
      Hmm I forgot where I parked my car, hey FCC, will you help me?

  14. Give up. You've lost your privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government knows everything about you, or can learn it easily because private individuals and corporations gather information that the government can not by law. Then, when the government wants the information, they either hand it over or issue a supeona.

    The sad part is that people are deliberately gathering information for the sole purpose of subverting the constitution, many in the name of national security. There was a TV conspiracy show on recently ( a bit off base at times ) that did point out a part of Homeland Security and how they and every day corporations that have nothing to do with security are working together to gather "to protect America". I'm sure if you search for it you'll find the organization, I don't remember than name. But I did down load the membership form and it is a real scare.

    Using Americans to violate other American's freedoms and right to privacy. People are so naive these days. Give them a Play Station and let them suck their thumbs and their happy.

  15. Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 0

    So basically the FBI can put one of these on anyone it wants, anywhere. Are you part of a group that it doesn't like? Even if there's no evidence whatsoever that anyone in that group has ever committed a serious crime? Then they can and will follow you around for years with one of these.

    On the bright side (there is one), at least if you ever are prosecuted you can show your whereabouts pretty easily. Nearly every one of us here routinely spends many hours of the day, at home asleep or watching TV or something. There's no evidence at all to show you were there except for the word of family members, which juries routinely ignore. Thus, if someone you dislike is murdered, bam you're a suspect and you have no proof of your innocence.

    As it turns out, you DO need to prove your innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything if they can show 'circumstantial' evidence that indicates that you had the means (as in you had a pair of hands), the motive (you hated the victim because they did something bad to you) and the opportunity (you COULD have gotten to the victim in the time window indicated, and you don't have any proof you didn't. You know, no proof other than dozens of witnesses or whatever. No actual proof, like phone records that you have proof you didn't fake, etc).

    I'm referring to this trial, btw : http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8116945

    This guy has the death penalty by the slow option : automatic life w/o parole. He has to prove his innocence to ever get out....and it's a totally different matter to prove you couldn't, by any possible means, have committed a crime vs. showing that you did.

    1. Re:Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Anyways, if the FBI had been monitoring Brad Cooper, they could have just pulled the records tracking where his car was, and show if he actually drove it to the site his wife's body was found or not. If he did it, there wouldn't have been an expensive trial, and if he were innocent, then he wouldn't have been indicted. Well, maybe. I suppose the Cary police department would just say that Brad "must have" hacked the FBI tracking device or used a GPS jammer...because he technically knew how to do such a thing....even if they never actually found the tools he used to do this.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's naive to think a prosecutor in the face of evidence exonerating the defendant would act so transparently.

    3. Re:Hmm by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that they would allow any evidence that exonerated anyone to come to light ? This device will only collect damning evidence.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>On the bright side (there is one), at least if you ever are prosecuted you can show your whereabouts pretty easily.

      That's assuming they'd release the information to you. I had a cop pull me over when I was driving the speed limit and never could get the highway patrol to release the traffic cam video.

      Judge laughed when I complained about it, too.

      Seriously, people, donate to the EFF.

    5. Re:Hmm by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Many are just pessimistic enough to believe this would happen.

    6. Re:Hmm by Hydian · · Score: 2

      You are assuming that the FBI would admit to having data that exonerated you and would be willing to turn it over. I find it more likely that they would deny it existed for as long as possible and then slap "State Secrets" on it so you can't have it anyway.

    7. Re:Hmm by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      The prosecution must reveal all evidence to the defence as in all the location logs for the tracker. It happens all the time. One of the best ways to get a charge dropped is to find evidence that the prosecution knew about but did not reveal. It does not have to be important evidence as hiding any evidence is grounds for dismissal. I realize it may be a difficult task but showing that some of the location logs are missing should be pretty easy. At worst all location logs would be thrown out.

    8. Re:Hmm by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh get real! What would happen is "ooops, lost the logs, what a fucking shame" like how the prosecution deleted the victims phone in the above case and how the judge refused to allow an expert to testify that the guy's computer was hacked.

      Lets be honest folks, if they want to fuck you they aren't gonna let a silly thing like evidence get in the way. Hell there is a guy on death row in Texas right now where the DNA shows he didn't do it so the prosecutor just said "Well he didn't rape her, he must have just came along and killed her". Why? Just because it was Tuesday?

      Anyone who has paid attention to our courts can come up with plenty of cases that are so full of shit you don't see how the prosecutor doesn't break into a shit eating grin from the level of bullshit they try to pass over on the jury. I remember one from my home state where pretty much everyone knew a cop had taken this guy out, most likely because he had caught the cops doing a dope deal, so they simply got the medical examiner to say that he committed suicide. Yeah by beating the shit out of himself, shooting himself three or four times, and THEN throwing himself off a bridge just to make sure. Same as how the prosecutor refused to listen to the engineer that testified that the two teens he ran over on the track were covered in a police tarp at the time and instead got the medical examiner to rule that the kids must have been so stoned on pot they just happened to fall asleep on the track and not get woke up by that train bouncing the living hell out of the tracks, or the ear splitting whistle. Uh huh.

      The only way you are gonna get a truly fair trial in this country is if you got the $$$ to hire you a land shark to fight for you, otherwise you're fucked. That is of course if you actually make it to trial, because they can easily decide you are 'resisting arrest" and hit you with that "less lethal" taser...ohh about a dozen times or so. I guess twitching can legally be considered a form of resisting?

      Look up "the largest gang in America" on YouTube and tell me how many rights you actually have now, because from what I saw the only real 'right" you have is to get the living shit beat out of you if you look at a cop funny, followed by being charged for making his knuckles sore pounding your ass. And if the local yokels can get away with that much, just imagine how much more a fed can get away with, such as TFA or worse.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Hmm by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Are you part of a group that it doesn't like? Even if there's no evidence whatsoever that anyone in that group has ever committed a serious crime? Then they can and will follow you around for years with one of these.

      To be fair, this is hardly new for the FBI. Remember COINTELPRO? You know, the FBI program after such dangerous and violent people as Martin Luther King and John Lennon. And there's some evidence that they continue to infiltrate and try to control numerous protest movements to ensure that their ideas are easily discredited.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many? Damn there are more intelligent people then I thought.

      Two sayings come to mind... On the pessimism... Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
      On the paranoia... Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're not being watched.

    11. Re:Hmm by Cwix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats so cute... you actually trust them.

      The device malfunctioned.
      The logs were lost.
      The logs get tampered with.
      Etc.

      They cant loose a case, it doesn't matter if the wrong person gets put away as long as the win to loss ratio is high enough to make that run for governor.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    12. Re:Hmm by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      On the bright side (there is one), at least if you ever are prosecuted you can show your whereabouts pretty easily.

      Not at all true. The GPS is not for YOU, it's for your CAR. So they know your car wasn't/was in a certain place. Doesn't mean you were at the same location as your car.

      This in addition to those below who said the FBI likely wouldn't let you use this data.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  16. 433 MHz ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This thing transmits on 433MHz! I have a license (issued by the Feds) to transmit on that frequency. hmmm...

    (Yes, like the article this comment is very USA centric.)

    1. Re:433 MHz ? by gnick · · Score: 1

      (Yes, like the article this comment is very USA centric.)

      To be fair, pretty much anything concerning the FBI tends to be pretty USA centric.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:433 MHz ? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're a secondary allocation over most if not all of the 70cm band, and must accept 'interference' from primary allocation users. Jamming them is illegal. If you were in the rest of the world, 433 MHz is an ISM band.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:433 MHz ? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      If you try to jam the frequency in question they will find you. If they have to they'll just home in on your radio signal, but if you're being a good operator and giving out your call signal (I'll assume if you're trying to jam something, which is already illegal, you won't be so stupid as to do that, but still) then they know exactly who you are.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  17. 21st century problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been said privacy and anonymity are 'modern inventions'. That may be so, however when looking at the foundations of these United States, and how personal liberty was one of the founding tenets, if not THE founding tenet, I find it hard to believe that an unjust 'surveillance society' could be allowed to develop and exist. The hipocrisy and irony here, referenced by US history, is too much to bear.

    (begin rant)
    Now, I don't know specifically who the FBI are targeting with these, seems like it was environmental activists up through terrorist suspects according to the article, but if the $50+ Billion we spend annually for 'intel' between the NSA, CIA, DIA can't usurpe threats to this nation, either foreign or domestic, explain to me how violating several parts of the Bill of Rights will!
    (end rant)

  18. Well by Jiro · · Score: 3, Funny

    They said that if I voted Republican, we'd get warrantless wiretapping. I voted Republican, and what do you know, we did!

    It's hardly even a joke any more. Obama's just as bad as his opponents, except we also get Obamacare added on top.

    1. Re:Well by Jiro · · Score: 1

      I meant tracking, of course. Though we did get warrantless wiretapping as well.

    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather have ObamaCare than RepublicanGiveAShit.

    3. Re:Well by iinlane · · Score: 2

      May I remind you that you're at war. You should be happy that your house is not under bombardment.

    4. Re:Well by rotide · · Score: 4, Informative

      The second you try to make this a partisan issue is the second you've proven you're drank the kool-aid. Both sides pander to those who give them money, which is everyone with profits on the line who also has enough money to "buy" someone.

      Democrat or Republican, same shit, different piles.

      Well... there are slight differences, but the end result still tastes crappy.

    5. Re:Well by danlip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've always been at war with Eastasia

    6. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're not really at war. we're just bored and killing brown people. that, and burning up our wealth in the process.

    7. Re:Well by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "The second you try to make this a partisan issue is the second you've proven you're drank the kool-aid. "
      I agree but did you say the same thing when the other party was in power? Silence is consent.

      That being said "To track or to wire-tape should require a warrant". I do not feel that is extreme at all. I will even go slight more permissive and say that international communications could be legally tapped without a warrant. After all there is no requirement of a warrant to search anything at a boarder crossing so that seems to fall in the same category. But really just get a warrant from a judge people.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Well by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Obama didn't distinguish himself in healthcare either, since it is more of the same of Dubyacare, aka Medicare Part D.

    9. Re:Well by iinlane · · Score: 2

      My point is that you have not had a war on continental America for ages. Now that Bin Laden brought the war onto your court the game has changed. The wiretapping and whatnot is necessary to keep the war at East Asia.

      The World, however, is not black'n'white. I do agree that some of the privacy intrusions are not actually necessary.

    10. Re:Well by rotide · · Score: 1

      I don't choose who I vote for by the little letter in the parenthesis next to their name. I vote for the guy that I think would make a more positive contribution to the country and to myself. I criticized Bush and I criticize Obama.

    11. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here.

      But does the government need a warrant to send out an agent to tail you? Everyones complaining about how this is unjust, but from a legal perspective I'm not too sure it is. I would hope more comments here would address the legal issues involved and add more information to the debate, rather than knee jerk reactions we are used to hearing.

      The above comment (and more +funny ones) accurately depict this as a big brother vs citizens debate, not a political issue

      Also is there a good way to use slashdot on my droid?

    12. Re:Well by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      This is true-congress never authorized a declaration of war on either Iraq or Afghanistan. What we have in those two countries is a very long "military operation" (though how they manage to justify that being different from a war boggles the mind).

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    13. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here.

      But does the government need a warrant to send out an agent to tail you? Everyones complaining about how this is unjust, but from a legal perspective I'm not too sure it is. I would hope more comments here would address the legal issues involved and add more information to the debate, rather than knee jerk reactions we are used to hearing.

      I see it as invasive since they are modifying your car and therefore should require a warrant.

      Cameras in public places where you have no expectation of privacy is an entirely different matter which is why I don't have a problem with license plate recognition systems.

    14. Re:Well by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Good. I supported Bush when I thought he doing the right thing and I support Obama when I feel he is doing the right thing like not showing the Osama pictures.
      I will say that I do no support warrant-less searches, tracking or wiretapping at all.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the profit to the police to know where your car has been/is? Checking the data on your iPhone would need a warrant but any info they can from just following you around shouldn't. The police can stake out your house 24/7 to see who comes and goes or they could set up a video camera and just record them. A gps on your car is just the cops recording your car. If Google earth could take a snapshot every minute would the police need a warrant to parse through the photos tracing your movements?

  19. Damn you George Bush! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, wait a sec...........

    Never mind.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Damn you George Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things fall under the Patriot Act. So your right. Damn you George Bush.

  20. That Patriot Act... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    ...had the same effect as shooting the little boy who had his thumb in the hole in the dam in the head. Stinks...we didn't even get a Beer Hall Putsch as warning. Unless that was Palin?

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  21. Irrelevant by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what are you doing that would warrant the FBI's eye

    First: who knows? Even if you're not cynical about government convicting or even prosecuting innocent people all the time, surely you admit they investigate innocent people all the time. They have to in order to do their job, rule out suspects, etc. This is why the we try to limit them taking extra more-invasive steps against people to only when they can show they have a good reason. If they only looked at people who are doing things that really warrant their attention, we would assume them to have godlike infallibility and wouldn't even bother with a justice system at all; just have them pass sentence on the bad guys.

    But aside from that...

    what are you doing that you do not want law enforcement to know?

    If it is legal for law enforcement to do this without a warrant, that suggests that legally the activity of putting a bug on someone else's care isn't special; i.e. it is not something that is considered to be a violation of privacy for which we sometimes permit government to do it as part of their rightful monopoly on force. In other words, if government can do this without invoking its special government-y powers, then anyone should be legally allowed to do it.

    So your question becomes:

    What are you doing that anyone in the world might want to know?

    Might the neighborhood burglar like realtime updated reports on when you're home and when you're not? Might your insurance carrier want to know if your daily patterns are outside the median? Might your stalker want to know where you are? Might your ex-wife's private investigator want to know who you're visiting? Might ClearChannel want to know which billboards you drive by most often? And so on. Draw on your paranoia and imagination and I think you'll see that Big Brother is just one of many brothers to be concerned about.

    If Just Anyone is not allowed to bug your car, then that suggests it is a special power reserved for government, and you're going to have a hard time arguing it's not a violation of privacy (if it's not, then why can't I bug your car?) or that it doesn't require any sort of balances or limits of power for which the 4th amendment was intended to provide protection.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Irrelevant by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Might the neighborhood burglar like realtime updated reports on when you're home and when you're not? Might your insurance carrier want to know if your daily patterns are outside the median? Might your stalker want to know where you are? Might your ex-wife's private investigator want to know who you're visiting? Might ClearChannel want to know which billboards you drive by most often? And so on. Draw on your paranoia and imagination and I think you'll see that Big Brother is just one of many brothers to be concerned about.

      If Just Anyone is not allowed to bug your car, then that suggests it is a special power reserved for government, and you're going to have a hard time arguing it's not a violation of privacy (if it's not, then why can't I bug your car?) or that it doesn't require any sort of balances or limits of power for which the 4th amendment was intended to provide protection.

      Lets see, burglary and stalking are illegal acts while investigating a suspect is not. If an insurance company has the resources to follow all their clients I would be surprised. For an ad agency to track a single person it must be a pretty important person. Probably the wife would want to know where you are rather than the ex-wife and, in my opinion, don't commit adultery.

      In my mind a tracking device is just another means of tailing someone. Since I do not do anything illegal and do not associate with people who do I have no problem with the police tracking me. In fact, it is less dangerous as people being tailed do not do dangerous acts just in case they are being tailed. It is also less invasive than tailing as the driver is not looking aver their shoulder for vehicles. The reason you can't track my car is that you do not have a legitimate reason to do so and it constitutes stalking, an illegal act. Exactly the same as you following me around all day. The police on the other hand can, and do, follow anyone they want without a warrant.

      The issue is the catch 22 that police forces are put into. They need to follow someone to gather evidence to get a search warrant to gather enough evidence to convict someone. If tracking is not allowed, they would need a search warrant to gather enough evidence to get a search warrant.

    2. Re:Irrelevant by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Following somebody all day and night isn't necessarily stalking. It all depends on your intent.

    3. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If tracking is not allowed, they would need a search warrant to gather enough evidence to get a search warrant.

      It should go without saying that this means there isn't enough information to need an investigation of that intensity on the activities of said individual.

  22. Here's a Solution by Celestialwolf · · Score: 1

    This makes me pretty mad as well; any and all GPS tracking should require a warrant. Period. Sad thing is, with just about any cell phone, you can be tracked just by your position in relation to cell phone towers--not to mention all the devices that are GPS-enabled--without your knowledge.

    Not sure how legal they are, but there are GPS-jamming devices that can be had for relatively cheap: http://goo.gl/4TUL6 . The problem with those is neither you nor the cars around you will be able to use GPS navigation either...

    1. Re:Here's a Solution by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      This makes me pretty mad as well; any and all GPS tracking should require a warrant. Period. Sad thing is, with just about any cell phone, you can be tracked just by your position in relation to cell phone towers--not to mention all the devices that are GPS-enabled--without your knowledge.

      Any dope dealer knows you can buy a Trac phone at 7-11, and remain anonymous. I am all for getting a warrant for these things, but with minimal effort you can remain pretty damn anonymous.

  23. Re:Opprepssion, not violation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preaching to the choir there boy!

  24. Change we can count on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with the Obama administration seeking Supreme Court approval for its use of the devices without a warrant

    I'm sure it's still Bush's fault, somehow.

    1. Re:Change we can count on by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Of course it is! The Patriot Act enabled Obama and the Dems. If it hadn't been for that they never would have thought of this on their own, right? I mean Obama and Co are all for hope and change and rule of law and privacy rights and... yeah all that stuff they told us they were for each year Bush was in office!

  25. Valuable info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How long until the FBI starts selling this info? Hell, it works for Google.

  26. Re:Give up. You've lost your privacy. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh huh...BTW where the hell have you been for the past 80 years or so? The FBI have always been jack booted thugs going back to their very formation! look up COINTELPRO and see how they have gone so far as to execute Americans on American soil for daring to speak views that weren't on the FBI's approved list of things Negroes were allowed to say at the time.

    Anybody that expects the FBI to be anything BUT jack booted attack dogs really haven't been paying attention, just as anybody that thought Nobama would be any different than McSame obviously hadn't been following the money. We lost this country decades ago the only difference now is the greedy swine at the top have gotten so ballsy they don't even pretend to give a fuck about things like the constitution anymore.

    But as others have said sooner or later we'll have our very own Egypt and things will get real ugly. I'm betting when China dumps their dollars and starts a worldwide dollar dump and the US dollar is worth about as much as a buck in Zimbabwe the excrement WILL hit the bladed cooling device. My guess is a lot of rich folks will be doing their impersonation of the fall of Saigon complete with helicopters taking off of roofs to escape the hordes. The real question will be what comes after which I kinda feel sorry for the rest of the planet then because as we saw in Europe a militant nation with massive unemployment and a shitload of weapons tends to get nasty to those around them. Hell we even have the pre-made groups to persecute, just replace Jews and Gypsy with Mexicans and H1-Bs.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  27. Any way to detect tracking devices? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Or disable them, other than jamming GPS or cell phone?

    1. Re:Any way to detect tracking devices? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Localized low level EMP? I don't know much about such things but wouldn't that completely knock out the device? Though that might damage your car as well...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  28. DIY alibi kit! by couchslug · · Score: 1

    These will become more common in many countries...

    The way to exploit being followed is to provide the enemy with the data you wish them to have. Take digital pics of its position on the vehicle so you can replace it, then use it as an alibi!

    It can be moving when you are in-place, or in-place when you are moving. It can be moving elsewhere, states away if you like.

    You can state you were at X location and KNOW that matches their data without revealing that you know this.

    One doesn't "hide" by turning off parts of the system, one hides by making the system your bitch.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:DIY alibi kit! by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. If you contact your local law enforcement agency and inform them that you found a device that looks like a bomb - about 10 minutes after you contact ALL of your local news agencies so the arriving officers can have a nice little wall of reporters to go through. Ensure that the reporters are on your property, so the officer can't tell them to leave. Its your property. This way, when they have to make the embarrassing admission that its a GPS tracker, its a matter of public record. Now, you have a public record that your movements are being tracked. What a great time to rob a bank - after all, you only have one car, and it never left your driveway. Or was it the tracker that never left the driveway? Hmm.

    2. Re:DIY alibi kit! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      You'd jam OTHER GPS, so "no".

      It would make more sense to use technology to FIND the device and exploit it by changing it's position.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  29. Tracking a car is inefficient... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

    Why would they go to all the effort of slapping a custom-build gps device on a car when an iPhone will do the trick much more effectively? Plus, there's no risk of negative PR. It'll be a feature to be tracked by the FBI, so they can keep you safe at all times.

  30. If you don't relocate this to the neighbor's van, by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    standard household 120v AC, hooked to each antenna for a few seconds should modify the unit to the desired operating status.

    The neighbor's van solution *is* funnier, however, although placing it in the middle of a raw sewage processing facility, a rural outhouse or a porn theatre has some appeal.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  31. Yasir Afifi by Jyunga · · Score: 1

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/ Cool tidbit (well I think it's cool): I personally worked on all the ST820s when I was at Cobham. I'd have tested that unit!

  32. FBI VS GOOGLE/APPLE by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    If both Google and Apple can track exactly where you are every time you click or touch any of their devices or android tools... why can't the FBI?

    1. Re:FBI VS GOOGLE/APPLE by Americium · · Score: 1

      Perhaps terrorists don't use those smartphones for exactly that reason. Or perhaps they simply turn them off while they drive, you're assuming they are targeting innocents nerds for no reason.

    2. Re:FBI VS GOOGLE/APPLE by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      An important difference is that when it was brought to light that Google and Apple were tracking these things, there were lawsuits filed and a general uproar that is prompting changes (at least in Apple's case). The FBI's response is instead going to be "tough titties." Not to mention that the corporate products are optional and not backed up by the threat of force.

    3. Re:FBI VS GOOGLE/APPLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Not to mention that the corporate products are optional and not backed up by the threat of force." ... yet

      Once there starts to be too many Android users, Apple will start to enforce those terms of service you agreed to in the last iTunes update!!!

  33. Poison the Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be interesting, I think, to reverse engineer how these things work. Then overwhelm the FBI with bogus data. Drown them with so much false data that the stuff they are after is useless.

  34. The range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the range of this device? How far can it transmit? Is it possible to intercept these signals?

    Could you put up a receiver at a busy intersection and see if anyone in your town is being tracked by the FBI? Could you let them know?

  35. So many options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow; if I were to find one of these the options are almost limitless.

    How about replacing the GPS module (which just spews a serial 4800 NMEA data stream of GPS data) w/ an Arduino that 'drives across the country' continuously;
    perhaps you should get in touch with the EPA and charge the FBI with the unlawful disposal of chemical waste (go have a read about those batteries).

    I'm so glad I don't live in a police state like the USA

    1. Re:So many options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do live in the USA, and it isn't a police state.

    2. Re:So many options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I live about 35km from the United States.

  36. Just as long as it goes both ways... by Biljrat · · Score: 1

    If the government can put a GPS tracker on a citizen car without a warrant, then a citizen should be able to put a GPS tracker on a government car. ;-)

    1. Re:Just as long as it goes both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better yet, live 24/7 youtube feeds from cams worn by all officers, police, fbi, cia, dea, etc...
      oh - and that would include all judges, and senators / congressmen as well - they're all public officials who owe their jobs to us correct - yeah, and the cabinet members too. there should be NO secrets from the public on what they do.
      let's record them all the time, everything they do.
      oh - they wanna be secret and go undercover? what kind of seditious activities are they planning? none? law enforcement? too bad - if we can't have privacy, you can't either.

    2. Re:Just as long as it goes both ways... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      It's a beautiful concept, but police, fbi, cia, ect are citizens too. They go home from their day jobs and I doubt they want people watching them while they're at home.

      Plus, seeing how inadequate our government is with technology, I highly doubt they have the ability to pull something like that off. There would also have to be exceptions, like officers working undercover.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  37. Foreign object in car? Call the bomb squad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call the bomb squad and tell them someone attached a suspicious device to your car, they will remove it safely (and they will not blow up your car once they figure out it's not a bomb, that doesn't happen in real life). If this is done enough times, the people deploying GPS trackers will catch enough flak from local cops about false alarms that they'll stop. You can probably initiate a lawsuit against John Doe for planting a fake bomb on your car and scaring you / preventing you from going to work / etc.

    If this is a matter of law, try to solve it using the law. If not, get creative, put it on your boat, do a teardown for ifixit etc. I have no problem with the government setting the rules (that's what it is there for afterall!) but then they have to play with them. If unknown persons donated a gps and packet radio to me I would be elated, personally :)

    Disclaimer: I build bomb squad equipment, mostly robots.

  38. FBI = SCUM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just pure creepy scumbag level behaviour. How can you american put up with it? Don't vote Obama ever again, ultimately the responsibility for continuing such illegal activities falls on him. He betrayed your trust.

  39. Re:If you don't relocate this to the neighbor's va by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would make for an Epic all point bulitin.

    "Subjects gps position indicates that they crashed their vehicle into a porn theater"

  40. Will it blend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, will it?

  41. Re:Give up. You've lost your privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Mexican, I have to ask, do we really have to replace the Jews and Gypsies?

  42. Can't say it any better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin

  43. Am I bugged? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    How do I determine if I have one of these things on my car?

    1. Re:Am I bugged? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      How do I determine if I have one of these things on my car?

      Probably something plastic and/or cleaner than the undercarriage, within arms' reach from the sides/bumpers.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  44. Redundancy: in case I forget my cell phone? by Lashat · · Score: 1

    Any good surveillance methods have backups, I guess.

    For what it's worth I don't think this is going to be stopped.

    Even if the Supreme Court says any evidence gathered this way can't be used in court, police will still use these techniques to develop a "habit profile" on a suspect. Then fall back on more conventional techniques of tracking to disclose any useful discoveries. "I had a hunch your honor so I followed them and witnessed them ."

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  45. $50K... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn. 2-3 years ago a guy brought me a couple of similar units, and a bunch of other expensive looking electronics, that some engineer in Savannah had tossed in the trash. Could have written a really detailed teardown and had some fun playing around with them, AND maybe gotten a reward for returning the units to the company that pretty obviously had no intention of trashing them. But, I've been burned before, doing the "right" thing. No good deed goes unpunished, etc. Not to mention I didn't have 2 nickels to rub together, or a working net connection, to submit articles.

    C'est la vie.
    jbdigriz

  46. Re:Give up. You've lost your privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say no. Being Mexican just means your ancestors might have been just a few miles outside the right side of the US southern border when that was defined.

    Let's pick on the Guatemalans. They weren't even close.

    And how the hell did the post above yours get modded to 5? It wasn't informative in the least. It's the same tired old tin-foil hat shit - not that the government doesn't abuse the Constitution, but "jack booted attack dogs" is almost trollish.

  47. Just get OnStar by formfeed · · Score: 1

    These custom built tracking devices cost a lot of money.

    If you find one under your car, you should be ashamed of wasting tax payer money like that (and also for forcing a federal agent to get down there and make his suit pants dirty.)
    Just get a new car with OnStar, and I guarantee you you won't find another tracking device in your car's bumper.

  48. GPS Jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GPS signals are weak spread spectrum and so fairly easy to jam. I don't know the legalities but I'm sure they are illegal. However, if you are worth being monitored by the FBI then you probably aren't so concerned about that.

    A quick search and here we go: http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=60&id=13

    You could probably spoof the signal as well, but that might be a lot more difficult to implement, but would be a much more elegant solution.

  49. FBI by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Cue the "if the FBI try to plant a bug on my vehicle on my private land, I fully intend to shoot the officers dead who try it" posts in 3...2...

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  50. the issue is wether the fbi can consist of people by KingBenny · · Score: 0

    who are incorruptible, the answer is no, maybe computers who can think between one and zero will help us

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  51. Nice touch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is not yet a Tracking Device repair manual, but you can start one!"