Slashdot Mirror


NJ Judge Rules GPS Tracking of Spouse Legal

Endoflow2010 writes "The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today. Based on the battle of a divorcing Gloucester County couple, the decision helps clarify the rules governing a technology increasingly employed by suspicious spouses — many of whom hire private investigators. No state law governs the use of GPS tracking devices, and the ruling, which does not affect police officers, is the first to address the issue, said Jimmie Mesis, past president of the New Jersey Licensed Private Investigators Association. 'We only use it when we are sure we have the appropriate conditions,' [private investigator Lisa Reed] said, noting that investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas, and that the spouse must have some legal or financial connection to the car."

241 comments

  1. A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..is to use a GPS jammer.

    1. Re:A simple solution... by RsG · · Score: 3, Informative

      That could be a problem.

      The legality here, which the end of the summary alludes to, is that there's joint ownership involved with respect to the car. If a car is property of both parties, and spouse A puts a tracker on it (or more likely gets a PI to do it), but doesn't tell spouse B, then (s)he can't be charged under this precedent. It sucks, from a moral standpoint, that the being-spied-upon spouse doesn't have a recourse, but what's right and what's legal aren't always the same thing.

      A GPS jammer OTOH could be illegal by simple dint of disrupting the GPS systems of people not involved in this marital spat. This is an annoyance if the person being disrupted is merely using their GPS to get to the grocery store; it could be a much bigger problem if they're on their way to the hospital. I'm not sure as to the legality of jammers by jurisdiction, but it would surprise me if there aren't laws or precedent in place, for more or less this reason.

      A better solution would be a detector; sweep the car for bugs.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:A simple solution... by JoeTalbott · · Score: 2

      I read that as GPS hammer.

    3. Re:A simple solution... by Amouth · · Score: 4, Informative

      we GPS jammers are illegal as to jam you need to broadcast on the same frequency with would require a licence that the FCC isn't going to give to anyone outside of the Military or NASA.

      a detector more than likely wouldn't work as most of theses trackers are placed and they listen and then store data local and then are retrieved physically by the person who put it there.. if it isn't broadcasting it would be very difficult to detect remotely considering the current makeup of a modern car.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are all so glad that you shared such a boring story with us, bro.

    5. Re:A simple solution... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically, you are only keeping tabs on your own property. This reminds me of a colleague of mine that worked at a phone company, woman called in and was completely furious because they've given the records for HER phone to her husband. Except it wasn't her phone, it was registered in the name of the company and the company was in his name. He requested a detailed bill and the phone company simply complied. It doesn't matter that she was the one using it, that they called it hers because legally it was not - not that she was very willing to listen to that. Same when your spouse is using the car, it's not hers as the ownership is just as joined as ever. Sure a little creepy but it only applies to things you have joint or sole ownership in, that rather limits the uses.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:A simple solution... by arisvega · · Score: 1

      ..is to use a GPS jammer.

      I read that "a GPS hammer"

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    7. Re:A simple solution... by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps a simpler solution would be to refrain from cheating on your spouse...

    8. Re:A simple solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps a simpler solution would be to refrain from cheating on your spouse...

      Even simpler....don't get married!!

      Seriously, if you don't get married...and you want to upgrade to a 'newer model'...you don't risk losing half your worldly possessions, and splitting is as simple as "goodbye".

      Keeps life much simpler....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:A simple solution... by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary and article weren't specific about what type of tracker it was; it may have stored data locally or broadcast it. If you're storing data on the bug itself for later physical retrieval, then if the person driving the bugged car finds it, they can destroy it and the data, whereas remote monitoring ensures they only destroy the bug. And if it's just broadcasting a cellular signal, you could probably find it.

      Now, part of me wonders if a smart bug might only broadcast occasionally, say by sending the last 24 hours of data once a day, to avoid being detected. That could be a bitch to find... (And if it's occurred to me, it's occurred to people smarter than me, so I'll bet that kind of bug exists).

      Of course, for either a jammer of detector to matter to the discussion, you'd need to first believe that you were being tracked. TFA mentions this bug was in the glove compartment, so if the person had searched their car, they'd have found and disposed of it, or maybe had some fun screwing around with it first.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:A simple solution... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      a detector more than likely wouldn't work as most of theses trackers are placed and they listen

      I'm not up on GPS technology, but many radio receivers use a "heterodyne" system in which they generate an internal radio signal which they use to filter out the incoming radio signal. If GPS receivers do this, they could be tracked at short range from their internal signal, even if they're not deliberately transmitting anything.

    11. Re:A simple solution... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Also, don't share property, don't share finances, don't provide for the other person in any way, and above all, don't have kids. Yeah, sounds much better,

    12. Re:A simple solution... by DougF · · Score: 1

      Lee Marvin would disagree about "splitting is as simple as 'goodbye'".

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    13. Re:A simple solution... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Funny you say that... There has been quite the discussion on the subject of de facto unions here in Quebec, which apparently will lead to common-law unions having similar protections to married unions - food pensions, school pensions, etc. This is all part of the Eric v. Lola alimony case.

    14. Re:A simple solution... by harl · · Score: 1

      Very low power broadcasts don't require a license. For example the fm transmitters that plug into ipods.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    15. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: very low power broadcasts in some frequency bands don't require a license. The band that GPS uses is NOT one of them. ANY broadcast, regardless of power, requires a license on that band.

    16. Re:A simple solution... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not that simple.

      Let's say the financial contributions of the partnership are 70%-30%. If you're the 30% partner, marriage is great, because if you divorce you pick up a significant chunk of your ex's income. Even if you're the 70% partner, it might be a good idea economically if the savings on insurance and the like save you more than that same chunk of income.

      And of course, there's another piece of this as well: Just because you're married doesn't mean you and your spouse can't agree to allow sleeping with other people.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    17. Re:A simple solution... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I bet most do periodic broadcasts, as it would use less time on the cell network, and therefore be cheaper.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:A simple solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, don't share property, don't share finances, don't provide for the other person in any way, and above all, don't have kids. Yeah, sounds much better,

      I sense here you were attempting to be sarcastic...but honestly, I don't see anything wrong with what you said...or that that is bad.

      I mean, if you actually want to have kids..sure ok, then you need the marriage thing...in general. But if you don't want them...then there is no reason to marry. I'm independent, any woman I'm with...needs to be somewhat independent too, and definitely be fiscally sound on HER OWN. I'm not out there to take someone along for the ride...if they don't carry their own weight financially in the relationship, then you as a guy are basically paying for pussy, and there's a better descriptive word for that.

      But really...what good does it do to share property with someone? Share finances (unless you are earning at least nearly equal)? If they're earning too...there is no need to 'provide'.

      And for me...I've never had an inclination to have kids...too much of a boat anchor for my preferred lifestyle. I don't want to sacrifice a large chunk of my life and development, nor do I want the financial burden, I particularly like having a great deal of disposable income to travel with and buy things that make me happy. I like to meet and enjoy various women, and if I got tied down...that could get messy.

      It all depends on what you want out of life...it is short so make sure you do what you want to make it the most enjoyable you can.

      But what you described isn't negative....if you don't want kids.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:A simple solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Funny you say that... There has been quite the discussion on the subject of de facto unions here in Quebec, which apparently will lead to common-law unions having similar protections to married unions - food pensions, school pensions, etc. This is all part of the Eric v. Lola alimony case.

      Well, there's another step too...don't keep a chick around TOO long. Living together, well...if you go that route...make sure you know the laws of your state...some (in the US) do have that time limit where they consider you common law. Frankly, I just try to keep 2 or so out there in dating mode...when tired of one, I still have the spare...while looking for the next one.

      This works out for me..as that I still can have my OWN place...and no risk for losing my shit to someone after a relationship is over. And I don't ever get tired of the same lay forever. I'm not a jerk...I let girls know where I am upfront, that I'm not dating exclusive, etc. I usually part company on a friendly if not at least cordial basis. I'm often still friends with some of them after splitting for a long time, etc.

      But there are ways to avoid losing your stuff...just takes enjoying a certain lifestyle.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:A simple solution... by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      The legality here, which the end of the summary alludes to, is that there's joint ownership involved with respect to the car.

      That's what I first thought when I began reading the article, but later we find that "Appellate Judge Joseph Lisa, Jack Sabatino and Carmen Alvarez said [the plaintiff] had no right to expect privacy because the GPS tracked his movements on public streets."

      If this is truly the basis of the decision, then ownership of the vehicle seems irrelevant. By that argument, I could put a GPS tracker on your car, and it would not constitute an invasion of your privacy as long as you're driving on public streets.

      Of course, the article fails to give us any important particulars to know which of these arguments was the most influential in the Court's decision.

      What if I simply follow you around all day in my car and note your movements, as PIs did before the advent of GPS? I'd bet that there is case law on being tailed as an invasion of privacy, and it's probably legal on the same grounds.

      A more profound case might concern personal devices. Does your right to track my movements end at the doorstep?

    21. Re:A simple solution... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except that nobody is using this technology for that purpose. If you're that concerned with the vehicle being stolen you get it lojacked, that way every police car in the country is tracking where it is and they seem to have a really high success rate.

      This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.

      This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.

    22. Re:A simple solution... by magarity · · Score: 2

      This reminds me of a colleague of mine that worked at a phone company, woman called in

      What are the spousal privacy laws like there in India? :/

    23. Re:A simple solution... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It's because your car clearly isn't your personal property.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    24. Re:A simple solution... by butalearner · · Score: 1

      If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.

      I'm no lawyer, but doesn't having proof of adultery usually have an effect on alimony? Maybe he already spoke to a divorce lawyer and this is the result.

    25. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds great until you're old and gray and poop your pants, and wish -somebody- still cared.

    26. Re:A simple solution... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you're trying to be sarcastic, but that describes my life (I do have a girlfriend) and I enjoy it very much. She makes as much as I do and when we go out we take turns picking up the tab. I don't see a problem with that situation.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    27. Re:A simple solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Sounds great until you're old and gray and poop your pants, and wish -somebody- still cared.

      That sounds, sadly....like you're only living for the end of your life. Mentality like that...means you likely will miss a lot of the great opportunities before the end.

      And why would I be alone? I've got plenty of friends and anticipate I'll have many then too.

      And hey...when I get to the age where I'm too old to want to run around all over...and want to spend more time at 'home', etc.....maybe then I'll settle down with someone. There's not just 'one' person for you out there...there's millions of opportunities...you just have to always be on the look for them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:A simple solution... by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Throw out that idea. If I want kids, I'll go with a contract marriage that spells out the responsibilities of both parties. Much cheaper in the long run and ensures that there is no possibility of being nailed for spousal support or Alimony because of the contract.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    29. Re:A simple solution... by uid7306m · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a very self-centered view. Not evil, but just thinking about yourself.

      Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit. You can't buy that last two. You can buy a helper, you can buy sex, but you can only buy people who pretend to care about you or about what you say. If they are in it for the money, they don't care about you. Rather, they only care about your money.

      And, some of us are willing to actually pay attention to someone and to give a shit about them, in exchange. You can call it love, you can call it partnership, you can call it whatever you want.

    30. Re:A simple solution... by uid7306m · · Score: 1

      Could be a boring life. I suppose you get tired of them rapidly because you don't really know them all that well.

      Sounds like you're living your life in fear of losing half your property.... Weird. Property is just stuff. Plastic, mostly. Soon to be junk, mostly. Stuff that requires you to buy closets. Stuff just gets in the way, mostly.

      One of my most enlightening experiences was when I moved to England and found out how small the typical English house was, compared to my American house. I ended up throwing out/selling half of everything I owned. And, guess what? I didn't actually need any of it. (Of course, I would have regretted losing some of the *other* half...)

    31. Re:A simple solution... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      No. There are like two states with laws on the books still about it. Most, it means nothing. It simply doesn't matter to the courts why you are getting divorced.

    32. Re:A simple solution... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time, a Prince asked a beautiful Princessâ¦
      "Will you marry me?"

      The Princess said âoeNO!â

      And the Prince lived happily ever after and rode motorcycles and went fishing and hunting and played golf and dated women half his age and drank beer and scotch and had tons of money in the bank and left the toilet seat up.

      The End

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re:A simple solution... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Read up on Common Law marriages a bit. There is quite a lot more to it than just living together. Mostly, it's presenting one another to everybody else as "married". You have to SAY you are married. Even if you mix finances for 80 years, live in a house you own together, raise kids, cats and grandchildren. You are not married unless you say you are. BOTH of you. Being accidentally common law married simply does not exist.

    34. Re:A simple solution... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Are you a lawyer? Genuinely curious, because I always thought that adultery very much affected alimony, though not child support or community property. However, I do live in a state in which "alienation of affection" is a civil tort for which monetary damages can be given (though it is rare), so my perspective may be skewed.

    35. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.

      Completely agree, but that's also completely irrelevant. It shouldn't be illegal for you to track your car, regardless of the reason. Whether you're tracking your wife, your kid, your husband, your the best bud you you loaned your car to, it IS your car.

      The wife should certainly use the fact that her husband was spying on her in divorce court to get a better settlement, though.

    36. Re:A simple solution... by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      "This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order."

      Perhaps my spouse is developing early onset Alzheimer's and may need someone to help them in case they get lost.

      Perhaps MY CHILD is driving my car and I'd like to know where my car is, where it's been driven, and how fast its been driven.

      There's an unguessable number of good reasons to track a car or any other possession that you own.

      Why don't you have a seat over there and explain to us why you're arguing so vehemently against this. Striking a little close to home?

    37. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed they have much less storage in the kitchens there, because they don't cook anything they can't boil. They also have very small medicine cabinets because they don't need room for toothpaste or floss.

    38. Re:A simple solution... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      That's a very self-centered view. Not evil, but just thinking about yourself.

      Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit. You can't buy that last two. You can buy a helper, you can buy sex, but you can only buy people who pretend to care about you or about what you say. If they are in it for the money, they don't care about you. Rather, they only care about your money.

      And, some of us are willing to actually pay attention to someone and to give a shit about them, in exchange. You can call it love, you can call it partnership, you can call it whatever you want.

      I'm all for that, but you don't need marriage or commitment for that. I believe it's far more meaningful to have a relationship where both people involved know that the other person could up and leave at any moment and yet they choose not to. Keeps you from taking the relationship for granted.

    39. Re:A simple solution... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a spark gap transmitter broadcast enough EMI in the GPS band to disrupt over a short range? Need a license for that?
      Cool - an excuse to put Tesla coil and Jacob's Ladder on the roof of my car!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    40. Re:A simple solution... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit. You can't buy that last two. You can buy a helper, you can buy sex, but you can only buy people who pretend to care about you or about what you say. If they are in it for the money, they don't care about you. Rather, they only care about your money.

      I have plenty of friends...and people I care about...male and female. I trust many of them so much that they have keys to my house. If they're in need...I help out, and if I'm in need they help out. That isn't paid for.

      No one said I didn't give a shit about girls I pursue, date and sleep with...I just don't see a reason to stick with one for eternity...and there's always a new one I find interesting. I don't treat them like crap, I have a great time with them...and then after awhile move onto the next one.

      Why does that seem so vile to you? Why do you assume I don't give a shit about anyone...and that I don't have numerous friends and family that care about me as I do about them? Heck..I'm still friends with many women I've been with over the many years...some have moved on and married and I'm still friendly with them, etc.

      You speak of having someone around permanent, to talk to, etc....I like that too...I just say why limit it to only ONE person?

      And, nothing wrong with being self centered...I mean, in reality, it IS only you inside that flesh shell...you come into this world by yourself, and you leave it alone really. In between those...I go for as many friends and fun as I possibly can squeeze in, because I only get ONE shot at it, you know?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    41. Re:A simple solution... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Some of us like the knowledge that there is someone permanent around who is willing to help. Someone to talk to. Someone who gives a shit.

      Which is awesome (though also kind of self-centered if you think about it) and something I think all humans want as part of the human condition.

      But you seem to be implying that the only way to get that is with a long-term sexual relationship. Somebody to talk to, somebody who gives a shit... this sounds like the purview of friends and family, whether they are a spouse or not. It doesn't require a partnership or any love beyond the love of friends.

      The bottom line is that getting married and having kids are very personal decisions, and there is no right or wrong choice -- only a right and wrong choice for you. If that is something you want, go for it. if it's not something the GP wants, that's fine too.

    42. Re:A simple solution... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      The wife should certainly use the fact that her husband was spying on her in divorce court to get a better settlement, though.

      Did you read the article? The ex-WIFE hired the PI to track her husband, who incidentally was a sheriff and who kept evading the PI's attempts to physically follow him. The PI eventually found the husband traveling in his car with a woman who was not his wife. The husband is now suing the PI for invasion of privacy and ”substantial and permanent emotional distress.” He also tried to sue his ex-wife, but eventually dropped the claim, probably because she used the PI's info to financially rape him in court.

      I agree that it is invasion of privacy, but that's kind of what happens when you get married. If you want to keep banging different women, it's probably a good idea not to financially tie yourself to a single woman unless you've gotten her to agree to an open relationship beforehand.

    43. Re:A simple solution... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.

      Your comment is illogical given that divorce lawyers who suspect a spouse is cheating on their client will recommend that the client hire a PI to get evidence of infidelity. This increases the chances of a favorable settlement for their client.

      Suspicious spouses are usually suspicious for a reason.

      This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.

      How exactly do you suffer by giving your spouse the ability to track your movements? If this is something you worry about, you should reconsider marriage. Because, once married, you will find they spouses are able to track lots of other things in your life as well.

    44. Re:A simple solution... by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      Money can buy pussy.

      Money can't buy love.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    45. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand the whole toilet seat thing. Why don't women just look before they sit?

    46. Re:A simple solution... by gottspeed · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a better approach to me. Marriage is a trilateral contract between you, her and the state, and is essentially a bet against your own success, and sincerity of affection (now that women are legally persons). The best solution is not to marry people with a debt-slave mentality, but good luck with that.

    47. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on where you live. In Manitoba, the courts see you as common law if you so much as live together for 6 months. The courts should have no business in your bedroom, but this is one of those nanny control-freak provinces that wants to make sure you depend on them for every facet of your life.

    48. Re:A simple solution... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Not a jammer, a SNIFFER. Jamming affects others, and is detectable.

      SNIFFING allows detection and MANIPULATION of a a GPS surveillance device. You don't want people tracking you to know what you know, you want to control what they think they know.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    49. Re:A simple solution... by multimediavt · · Score: 1

      No, the legality here is none of the parties involved is law enforcement. Private citizens can do a lot of things cops can't do without warrants. Now, this does vary from state to state in the U.S., but there are different, stricter surveillance rules for law enforcement for a reason.

    50. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      We aren't all robots going through life in the most logical way possible.

      Imagine you've been with someone for 5+ years (it sounds like in your case that has never happened), you love her (it sounds like in your case that has never happened) and she suddenly has a car accident, which causes her to lose her job, subsequently losing her house. Are you going to dump her? Or help share some of her financial burden until she gets back on her feet?

      Or, imagine you accidentally get her pregnant. Are you going to insist she aborts/leave her/refuse any financial support of the child?

      What about end-of-life or other critical medical decisions? Hospital visitations? You generally can't do that without marriage or civil unions (which also tie you together financially), and many states have banned civil unions across the board rather than allow gays those rights.

      I'm genuinely curious what you think about those things. I have a friend who used to talk exactly like you when he was in his twenties, then went through some bad situations and realized the real world isn't as black and white as he thought.

    51. Re:A simple solution... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The summary and article weren't specific about what type of tracker it was

      And it's entirely sensible that a legal judgement be as inclusive as possible about the equipment, otherwise the law could just be circumvented by using different equipment.

      TFA mentions this bug was in the glove compartment,

      How many GPS devices can work inside a (plastic, or metal) lidded glove compartment? Not many, I think.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    52. Re:A simple solution... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      It depends on the state. Most states only care about a spouse's bad behavior when determining child custody. If there are no kids, it probably doesn't matter if one spouse was having an affair.

      If you are contemplating divorce, obtain competent legal counsel in your jurisdiction.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    53. Re:A simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have eyes down there.

    54. Re:A simple solution... by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Signals broadcast with no constructive purpose other than to jam other are illegal. It's pretty simple. Radio jammers, GPS jammers, radar jammers etc are all illegal for civilian use.

      "it is a violation of federal law to use devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi."

      http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-250A1.pdf

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  2. car??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mobile phone would make more sense ;)

  3. Spy on Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So since us citizens have financial connections to government cars (we pay for them) we can track them?

    1. Re:Spy on Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Just be prepared that you will become the girlfriend of a guy named 'Bubba' in pound me in the ass prison.

  4. VAG GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No comment

  5. Well, if it's your car, you should be able to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... track it.

    Oddly enough, BMW has a program called BMW Assist with includes gps tracking for theft recovery. But BMW will NOT provide the location to the owner of the vehicle, only to the police, after you fill out a police report.

    When they were trying to sell me on this system, I said, you won't tell ME where MY car is even though I pay for this "service"? F. U.

  6. You know what? by n5vb · · Score: 1

    If I'm ever married to someone who doesn't have any moral or ethical problems with putting a GPS tracker on my vehicle just to get dirt on me, and they want a divorce .. they can have it with my blessings.

    Not that they're hard to find or disable if you know what you're looking for. (Or if you, say, "accidentally" lose it on the highway somewhere.) (And it's not like we need that many excuses to crawl under our vehicles looking for interesting things to see.. ;)

    1. Re:You know what? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well if you are cheating on your spouse then I am not sure that they are the only one with moral or ethical problems.

    2. Re:You know what? by impaledsunset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Awful ruling, but I'd have less problem with my spouse tracking me than the police doing it. And I could divorce my spouse, while I can't do that with the police.

    3. Re:You know what? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Marriage is not supposed to be an adversarial arrangement.... I mean... maybe if you are into that, but I am not.

      However, if your spouse is that jealous and non-trusting, one would think you would have found this out before you got married. People don't usually just suddenly decide that they are jealous and don't trust you at all, either you gave them some reason...or they were batshit crazy and insecure to begin with.

      This is why I stick to open relationships, I would never put up with this stuff.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:You know what? by v1 · · Score: 2

      Just don't try to sell it on ebay. That usually doesn't end well, particularly if it was installed by an officer. Best to "lose" it on a bumpy road. Maybe under the tires once or twice for good measure.

      Tho I still don't get it why something left on/in your property is not considered abandoned and become your property?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:You know what? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Why is it an awful ruling? If you own the vehicle you have the right to put a tracking device on it. I'm failing to see what is so awful about that.

    6. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tracker was probably placed there to show evidence of adultery so that a better settlement could be negotiated. By the time the tracker was placed, a divorce was probably already planned.

      It's nice to hear about GPS trackers being used against police officers (though in a personal, not official, capacity) rather than by police officers.

    7. Re:You know what? by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Ownership does not (or should not) trump privacy. It's like installing bugs or cameras in your house to monitor your family without their knowledge.

    8. Re:You know what? by wasabii · · Score: 1

      Yes. It is like that. And it's perfectly fine.

    9. Re:You know what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Ownership does not (or should not) trump privacy.

      Yes, it does. Your privacy means jack squat if you are using my car which I can track all I want.

      It's like installing bugs or cameras in your house to monitor your family without their knowledge.

      So it's like another perfectly legal action?

    10. Re:You know what? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you have no right to privacy from me when you are using my property. It is also perfectly fine for me to have a keylogger monitoring everything you do on my computer. If you think your privacy trumps that then only drive your own car or use your own computer, etc.

    11. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you are cheating on your spouse then I am not sure that they are the only one with moral or ethical problems.

      That's the thing: "IF" you are cheating.
      How about if you ARE NOT cheating and the spouse is jealous to the extent of mental disorder?
      One does not automatically become a cheater when a spouse attaches a GPS tracker on your car!

      In other words, life is not so simple.

    12. Re:You know what? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Did you not even read the summary? It's either NOT the "allegedly cheating" spouse's property, or it's jointly owned, which makes it the property of the "suspicious spouse," which makes it legal and, if my spouse destroyed my property that I had legally installed on my other property, I'd be pretty pissed and have yet more reason to be suspicious.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    13. Re:You know what? by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      The Hell it doesn't. You don't have any right to privacy on MY property or where I am paying the bill. I am tracking my kids phones, cars, monitoring their Internet activities, you name it. I don't keep my computer password protected from my wife or my e-mail. I don't have anything to hide. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM YOUR FAMILY. The idea that you do is laughable.

    14. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is - and I know from personal experience, some people in a relationship can get crazy and start imagining things. A classic quote from my ex: "Why don't you get your own apartment so you can fuck all those other women, like you want to". Came completely out of nowhere and with no basis in fact. So, groundless or not, people will have there suspicions and may act upon them. So glad to be rid of that psycho!

    15. Re:You know what? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Yikes.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    16. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you have never been divorced before, or owned anything when you were married.

      Say you feel that you wife is cheating on you with your best friend by different cues that she gives off when your best friend of 15 years is over your house to play video games. You ask her about her day and there are hours of time that are missing from her story.

      I had a house 10 years before she married me. She never paid a dime on the house. She never paid a dime for the car that she drives. I came home from work early one Friday and found the front door unlocked. Three years I've been coming home to a locked front door. Stuff in the living room has been knocked over and there are clothes on the floor. I open a closet and grab a baseball bat. As I make the corner to the stairs to go up them, my used to be best friend is at the top of the stairs in a towel.

      I stick the end of the baseball bat in his face as he walks down the stairs and then push him in the back of the head as he walks out the front door. I do almost the same to her.

      She divorces me. She forces the sale of the home at a loss of less than the balance of the mortgage. She doesn't have to pay a dime of loss of the sale. She gets to keep the car that she is driving. She gets other valuables that are in the house and I end up paying spousal support for 6 months. Why... I had no proof that she was actually having an affair. I had all the indications, and I didn't act on them. I wanted to believe she wouldn't do it to me. Boy was I wrong.

      Oh. I also ended up with the all the attorneys bills. I'll be paying on that for years to come.

      A woman can and will ruin you for the rest of your life and she will laugh at you. She will have no regrets.

      Have a divorce with your blessing???? I hope you don't ever want a comfortable life again. I hope that you will enjoy living in low rent apartments the rest of your life because decent apartment community's run a credit check and will not rent to you.

      A poor credit score will also prevent you from ever having a well paying job too. I've been turned down for a job because of a bad credit score.

      Think about it next time before you say "They can have it with my blessings", you may be giving your life away.

    17. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know from personal experience that people in a relationship can start out with mild, acceptable forms of your basic human flaws that may get worse over the years, especially during stressful times (bereavement, having children for example). My ex started out just mildly paranoid, angry, jealous and destructive and some years later with the death of her mother and birth of our son around the same time, she just started ramping up the bat shit crazy side of her personality. Eventually she was unrecognizable to me! It is very difficult to project how a person will be in 15+ years

    18. Re:You know what? by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      All perfectly legal to do, with the exception of bathrooms etc... there is not reasonable expectation of privacy in a home owned by someone other then yourself, or jointly owned. My fiance has no more right to expect privacy in our living room, then I have right to expect privacy at the local gas station. You have a right to know what you're property was used for. If your friend borrows your phone to make a call, do you think it is illegal to request the bill that shows where the phone called? If I request a log from my cellphone company, do they need consent of everyone who has a phone on my plan? Nope they require consent of the person who's paying the bill, everyone else is on borrowed property and has no right to privacy, if they don't like it, they can get their own phone and plan.

    19. Re:You know what? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Bathroom for your 12yr old daughter?

    20. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - it is perfectly fine. Marriage is the union of a Man in a Woman, some places a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman or some trans-gender mix. The point is, marriage is a union of two people that legally binds them as one person - if they have children those children are their responsibility until the children turn 18. There is absolutely nothing immoral about tracking, cameras, microphones, etc between two people who have been married or their children, consenting or not, a married couple has the right to know what their spouse and children are doing at all times and should be ok with that - having been married.

      The only time any form of secrecy is warranted is when there is one party who could in some way suffer by another party knowing some strategic information about them - this cannot possibly apply to knowledge you hold about yourself so it doesn't apply to knowledge you want to keep from a spouse. There is no adversary to keep things from in such a relationship - and if there is you shouldn't have married that person.

    21. Re:You know what? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ownership laws trump privacy laws, but child exploitation trumps just about everything.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:You know what? by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.. I probably would have killed them both since I have guns at the house and I would have been armed with one rather than a bat. Voluntary Manslaughter.

    23. Re:You know what? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Why is it an awful ruling? If you own the vehicle you have the right to put a tracking device on it. I'm failing to see what is so awful about that.

      Because the point is that your spouse doesn't give a fuck-all of where the car is. It's just a handy excuse to track where you are via the car.

      Might as well put a tracker on your frigging suit jacket --- after all, it's not really about you; your wife just wants to be sure that your fancy Armani jacket isn't stolen while you're at the office, right?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    24. Re:You know what? by rsborg · · Score: 2

      If I'm ever married to someone who doesn't have any moral or ethical problems with putting a GPS tracker on my vehicle just to get dirt on me, and they want a divorce .. they can have it with my blessings

      Most of these people aren't necessarily unethical to begin with but they change over time to view it as acceptable. Bearing, rearing and caring for children changes parents.

      Another thing to keep in mind is that if children are involved the legally required child support and alimony can be crippling to the one who doesn't keep the kids... so parents "fight" for the kids, not just on emotional grounds, but on practical financial basis... divorces can really suck, even if there is no wrongdoing from either partner.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    25. Re:You know what? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      ...glad I'm not in your family.

      people have rights. or, are you some little dictator/king of your household?

      oh right, you already admitted as such. you spy on your own family.

      disgusting! you creep!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    26. Re:You know what? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "perfectly fine" to log what people do on your computer?

      do you tell them, before they borrow it, that you INTEND to spy on their every move?

      you, like many others who think that spying on friends/family/etc is A-OK, are also a creep!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    27. Re:You know what? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you have no right to privacy from me when you are using my property.

      I'm not sure that the courts would agree with you for all possible interpretations of that statement. I don't have links handy, and I'm too lazy to look them up at the moment, but I there have been plenty of legal cases where pervs owning houses/apartments/stores put video cameras in bathrooms or dressing rooms, and -- even though that was, in fact, their property -- the courts ruled that there was indeed both an expectation of and a right to privacy in those settings which trumped the ownership rights.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    28. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...
      What' jealous or non-trusting' are you fucking talking about.
      This cop was commiting the moral and legal crime of adultery.

      It's not that she was 'batshit crazy'... Its that this pig shit was cheating on her.
      She wanted proof, prob so he could not fucker her over again in divorce court, and she got it.
      HE WAS DOING THIS, SHE CALLED HIM ON IT.

      Also, funnier than hell that Police all over the country want to be able to trespass and interfere with personal property to install GPS without warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, but when a cop gets caught with his pants down banging some hoe he all worried about his poor 'privacy'.. "privacy' to use a vehicle registered in both names on public roads to go commit a moral AND LEGAL CRIME.

    29. Re:You know what? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      The line may be much more grey and blurry with your family than it is with perfect strangers, but it certainly exists.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    30. Re:You know what? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      My ex started out just mildly paranoid, angry, jealous and destructive and some years later with the death of her mother and birth of our son around the same time, she just started ramping up the bat shit crazy side of her personality.

      In other words, all the warning signs were there; you just chose to ignore them. FWIW, I've been there and done that, too.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    31. Re:You know what? by harl · · Score: 1

      He put a GPS on his own car. There is no privacy involved.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    32. Re:You know what? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I guess.... I still think its a crazy thing to get all bent out of shape about. In most relationships, one spouse or another will cheat at some point, why make a fucking huge deal over something that happens in most relationships? It really doesn't have to be that big of a deal and is hardly worth installing GPS devices over..... that fits my definition of fucking crazy.

      Then again, I guess I see that others see it as a big deal, if you are so wrapped up in the myth of monogamy then sure I guess.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    33. Re:You know what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      So there are "plenty of cases" yet you can't even cite a single one? Methinks someone is engaging in hyperbole.

    34. Re:You know what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Secondly, you seem to be conflating things. Putting tracking devices in cars or putting cameras in your own home is not the same as installing cameras in the toilet to watch strangers peeing.

    35. Re:You know what? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      You're world is filled with unicorns and rainbows, isn't it?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    36. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to call B.S. on this story. The house you owned before the marriage is not community property. She's not entitled to any of it. Even if she was, if there's no equity then there's nothing to split and thus no reason to sell the house.

    37. Re:You know what? by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      People don't have a right to "privacy" in most states, California, where I live, being one exception. At any rate when people are afforded this right it is typically a right to privacy from the government not other private citizens. You may have reasonable expectation of privacy for example in the bathrooms, but it is far from a right. Furthermore, parents have every interest is monitoring their minor children's activities. Minor children have no expectation of privacy. Back at you creep.

    38. Re:You know what? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      10 seconds of googling later...
      (hint: Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make it not so. When it's something that can be trivially discovered in 10 seconds or less, the onus is on you to not be an ass.)

    39. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But both make me cum.

    40. Re:You know what? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Because that's not the motive, the motive is spying on the spouse. If you want to make sure that your property isn't stolen, you can get the car lojacked. But this is purely a matter of stalking your spouse for nefarious purposes. There is not situation under which it is OK to track a partner without their full knowledge and consent.

    41. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say that the warning signs were there - sure - but as I said - the manifestations of these traits were mild and not very frequent, so there were a few good enjoyable years. No regrets now, but it is hell dealing with someone whose personality has changed drastically for the worse. I could never have imagined she would get that bad!

    42. Re:You know what? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the specifics are of NJ, but typically property purchased during marriage belong to both parties, meaning that it wouldn't be your car, it would be your and your spouse's car.

      Also, in many states you could go to prison for that sort of behavior, whether you own the equipment or not, you don't have the right to violated wiretap laws.

    43. Re:You know what? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter whether you're paying the bill or not, those things are typically communal property in most states. And at any rate, just because you're a jackass that's one step from domestic violence doesn't mean that it's the status quo to track and spy on ones family.

      The only reason why anybody ever engages in that behavior is to control the family members. It's somewhat legitimate when it comes to kids, but when it comes to ones spouse there is completely no justification possible. It's one of the first steps towards full on domestic violence for a reason.

    44. Re:You know what? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Your state sucks!

      In mine all assets and debts (aside from inheritance) accumulated since the marriage are split down the middle. This would have meant you would of owed her for half of the accrued equity, and she would of owed you for half of the second mortgage (I assume that if after 10 years of ownership it's underwater there was a second mortgage).

      The state cares not for affair, it just splits it down the middle. Perhaps, if there was a case taht you held her back, there would be spousal support, but otherwise none.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    45. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to ones spouse the thing that is 'controlling' is called marriage.
      If you want to fuck random virus bags don't get married or get divorced before you do it.

      I can't abide people who hide behind 'privacy' to hide their moral and legal transgressions.

    46. Re:You know what? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "can't"; I said "too lazy". Why? Because it's trivially easy (so you can find it if you want) and I really didn't feel like searching for terms like "voyeur" or "peeping tom" while at work, connecting to the net through a proxy server that captures URLs. Sue me.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    47. Re:You know what? by impaledsunset · · Score: 1

      It's awful because someone didn't read the summary, but hey, when was reading the summary a requirement for posting here?

    48. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right!

    49. Re:You know what? by Comboman · · Score: 1

      That's the thing: "IF" you are cheating.
      How about if you ARE NOT cheating and the spouse is jealous to the extent of mental disorder?

      Then that person is going to be hell to live with (whether they can legally track you or not) and you're probably better off without them. Why should we let people who have mental disorders limit what the rest of us can legally do? Someone with a mental disorder can buy a baseball bat and beat you over the head with it until you're dead. Does that mean baseball bats should be outlawed?

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    50. Re:You know what? by SonofSmog · · Score: 1

      Marital misconduct can result it dramatically different awards when paying alimony and dividing up community property. Even in so called no-fault divorce states. The following states take marital fault into consideration when determining an award of spousal support: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. (Source: American Bar Association, Family Law Quarterly, Winter 1998, Tables Summarizing the Law in Fifty States) The following states take marital misconduct, especially economic fault, into consideration when dividing marital or community property or in reimbursing the marital or community estate: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. (Source: American Bar Association, Family Law Quarterly, Winter 1998, Tables Summarizing the Law in Fifty States). BTW: Your clown for arguing that slapping a GPS a cheating spouses car is somehow "one step" from domestic violence.

    51. Re:You know what? by magarity · · Score: 1

      marriage is a union of two people that legally binds them as one person

      Well, it binds them as a legal entity and the level of binding can vary widely from state to state. Just look at a credit card application - it will say things about residents states X-Z need to include information about spouses while other states do not. In some states you can enter into lots of business/credit arrangements without a spouse even needing to know about it and other states require the spouse's signature, never mind just notification.

    52. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like this..
      You and your wife want to go out swinging and fucking random people you are in a minority, but more power to you. Hope you have fun. In that case it is a given you will 'cheat' on each other.

      But:
      You and your wife are married and fidelity within the relationship is expected. You sign a marriage contract.
      One of you goes out fucking people behind the others back, lying to cover it up, etc.
      This is not only broken trust, it is breaking a contract with both tradition and law backing it for over 150 years.
      There is no way to not know that cheating on your spouse is bad (unless you are in one of the few open marriages that only exist in playboy and fan fiction stories).

      Suspecting that your spouse is cheating is not crazy if your spouse gives you reason to think they are cheating.
      Gathering proof is the logical thing to do. If you think your phone company is screwing you, you look at the contract and gather proof.. If you think your spouse is screwing someone OTHER than you, you gather proof.

      Once you have proof of what is going on... Well, you are not paranoid, you are correct and your outrage justified.
      I just don't understand where you are coming from.

      If someone steals your laptop and you track it down by writing a GUI in VB to trace the IP address will you be worried about the privacy of the criminal that stole it?

      As long as you broke no law to gather PROOF, and you are correct about your suspisions.
      You are also hero to all who value reality over fantasy, truth over lies.
      Anyone who has a problem with people getting to the truth of the matter is just a slime bag.
      (Note, this is different from government interference or illegal search and seizure, etc)

    53. Re:You know what? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      The wedding vows I'm most familiar with have the phrase "forsaking all others", which I interpret to mean a commitment to monogamy. What sort of person makes a promise they don't intend to keep?

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    54. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it's not perfectly fine in California and in fact it can be considered a felony:

      Former Sacramento real estate mogul Michael Lyon was charged with four felony counts of electronic eavesdropping in Sacramento County Superior Court Wednesday morning. Case details

      Lyon, 54, did not enter a plea. He has been accused of secretly recording three women who were guests in his Sacramento home. Bill Portanova, Lyon's attorney, has said investigators told him the women were prostitutes.

      http://origin.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=106614&provider=top

    55. Re:You know what? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      The first Christmas after my ex moved out, I was driving out of her apartment complex after having picked up the kids and I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "Better to have loved and lost than live with a psycho bitch for the rest of your life."

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    56. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, that's illegal. stop making shit up.

    57. Re:You know what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's not awful The judge said you can put a GPS on a vehicle you are legally or financial tied to.
      i.e. your stuff.

      If a judge said you can't put a GPS in your car, you would be outraged.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    58. Re:You know what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's not that clear in many cases.

      If I borrow you lawn mower, that doesn't give you the right to go into my garage, nor would it give you a right to use a listening device you installed on your lawnmower.

      If it was a simple as you say, then it wouldn't have gone to court.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    59. Re:You know what? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Methinks you are too fucking stupid to sue the internet without someone holding your hand.

      If you were intellectually honest, you would have looked it up o your own. But you aren't you only want to listen to your own echo chamber unless someone drags you away kicking and screaming.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    60. Re:You know what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You can capitalize hell all you want, it doesn't make it so. People have rights, even when they are on your property. Good luck getting a judge to agree you have the right to make people take off there cloths, search their wallets, raid their electronic device simply because they are on your property.

      " YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM YOUR FAMILY"
      What? are you insane? SO my brother can fly out to my home and search my stuff? Your kids have a right to search through all your things? track you?

      Fuck, you're an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    61. Re:You know what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. In fact they have it in every state.
      Where is the line? that's a different question.

      "You may have reasonable expectation of privacy for example in the bathrooms, but it is far from a right. "
      Your right to privacy is exactly WHY you have reasonable expectation, you twad.

      Parent are responsible for minors, but even as the get into their teens that have certain privacy rights. For example: They can talk you their doctor and not have you informed as to their discussion. They can talk to a priest, and so on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    62. Re:You know what? by readin · · Score: 1

      Ownership does not (or should not) trump privacy. It's like installing bugs or cameras in your house to monitor your family without their knowledge.

      Privacy, when you're married??? Privacy within the family? Have you ever been married or been a parent? Sorry, but that really is a family matter and the state really ought to stay the hell out of it. If I learn my wife is spying on me, of if I spy on her and she finds out, then there will be a lot of anger. But that is for us to work out. It's none of the state's business. And if I'm spying on my kids, that's purely my and my wife's decision. Whether or not you think it is wrong, it's not your decision and it's not even our elected representative's decision. It's the parents' decision.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    63. Re:You know what? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Um....well my vows didn't include that...on purpose...

      That said, I agree but...the answer to what sort of person is "most people" given the statistics on infidelity.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    64. Re:You know what? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Ownership does not (or should not) trump privacy. It's like installing bugs or cameras in your house to monitor your family without their knowledge.

      No, it isn't.

      There are certain situations where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, if you were to set up a "shower cam" in a shower that you own, the ownership defense won't work if you record someone without permission.

      On the other hand, courts have held that an automobile traveling in public view on a public road does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    65. Re:You know what? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Honestly, more than anything, I am coming from the statistics on monogamous relationships basically saying that.... this is going to be true in most relationships at one point or another. Realistically, the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. As theoretically "bad" as it is, I have a hard time really coming down that hard on an activity that is both non-violent and engaged in by mid double digit percentages of people.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    66. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was refinanced when married to put her name on the mortgage to show good faith(first mistake). If you hadn't noticed in the last 2 years or so(divorce occurred little over two years ago) house prices have lost half of their value. I didn't have enough equity in the house to refinance again so the only way to remove her from the house and the liability, is to sell.

  7. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you can put a GPS on an object that you have a financial interest in... How exactly is this violating anything?

    1. Re:And? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.

    2. Re:And? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.

      No...they would be tracking the shoes/clothing/wallet/purse. How is that any different?

      Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. But if putting a GPS in a car (an item of personal property) isn't tracking a person, how is putting a GPS in shoes/clothing/wallet/purse (more personal property) any different?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  8. A simple failure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..is to use a GPS jammer.

    Then, you can't use a GPS navigator to get to where you're going.

    1. Re:A simple failure... by z3pp3h · · Score: 0

      No big deal, just memorize the directions.

    2. Re:A simple failure... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure the wife knows the way to her boyfriend's place already.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:A simple failure... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Then, you can't use a GPS navigator to get to where you're going.

      You can still easily and readily use the old analog version...the street map. Just stop at a service station or the like and pick up a local one.

      "You navigate...I'll drive...."

      --Spicolli

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. yeah right by JoeTalbott · · Score: 1

    Anything that follows this form usually doesn't: It will only be used when ________.

  10. Re:Well, if it's your car, you should be able to.. by GameMaster · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming, regardless of their personal position on privacy, they simply don't want to find themselves in the middle of domestic disputes like divorce proceedings.

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  11. Honestly... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

    If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship? Seems to me that suspicion of that magnitude is pretty much in itself a sign of a failed relationship. I mean, if there's no trust, what's the point of the relationship at all? Why not just end the relationship and go your own way? People get divorced or break up every single day...it's not the end of the world.

    1. Re:Honestly... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Proof. Useful in divorce proceedings. As opposed to speculation, which is not.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship?

      Because proof of guilt is important.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Honestly... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship? Seems to me that suspicion of that magnitude is pretty much in itself a sign of a failed relationship. I mean, if there's no trust, what's the point of the relationship at all? Why not just end the relationship and go your own way? People get divorced or break up every single day...it's not the end of the world.

      So that they don't get stuck on the short end of the divorce settlement. Or, so that they can use the evidence to get a divorce settlement that will punish the other party for cheating on them.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Honestly... by LanMan04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids? House? Shared commitments?

      We're not all 23 and dating, you know.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    5. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a very logical view if you're a well balanced person. Not everyone is.

      Some people used to be very very trusting, and got taken advantage of, and may be paranoid now. I'm sure at least some of /. users can relate to paranoia, no? What's the better outcome - that the now-paranoid person overreacts and leaves a perfectly good relationship because they're suspicious, or that they do something like a GPS tracker and it puts them at ease?

      Whether or not it is moral and/or legal to GPS-track someone without their knowledge is a completely different question. But if my SO was honest and upfront with me about their paranoia, I'd volunteer for let them track me with a GPS (assuming I actually cared about the relationship). If the outcome of that ends badly, then so be it... but I'd want to do what I could to put them at ease because it's a relationship I cared about.

      If the gov't asked me to do the same, they can suck it. The "nothing to hide" mantra doesn't flow that direction... it's a one way street in the other direction - the gov't should provide us with the proverbial tracking info.

      A relationship isn't failed just because someone gets suspicious. It's failed if the two cant' resolve that suspicion.

    6. Re:Honestly... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Adultery is one of the grounds for divorce. While NJ did move out of the dark ages in 2007 when it added reasonable no-fault divorce grounds there are still some advantages to having fault grounds (you can skip some of the waiting periods the no-fault grounds usually require, and some people still hope they'll get a judge who will "punish" the other person in the "which stuff do I get and who pays who alimony/child support" part).

    7. Re:Honestly... by romanval · · Score: 1

      That's far too rational an argument. When humans relationships are involved, many people get weak, selfish, and stupid

    8. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship?

      Because proof of guilt is important.

      Wow, I'm happy to live in a country where there is no legal concept of "guilt" in divorce cases anymore (even if I never married and never would, it's just that it are backward ideas that (1) people own each other and (2) are "guilty" when their feelings towards the other change).

    9. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adultery is one of the grounds for divorce. While NJ did move out of the dark ages in 2007 when it added reasonable no-fault divorce grounds...

      Slightly off-topic:

      I was very surprised to find that in this small country Estonia in European Union, "adultery" is not one of the grounds for divorce. In fact, the law specifically states that a spouse may not limit the liberties of the other spouse. Thus it is legally unenforceable to make a "marriage contract" demanding that the other does not cheat.
      However, to balance this, both spouses are free to ask divorce at any time. No questions asked.

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

      Is it?

      If you are that batshit insecure/paranoid about your spouse cheating, why are you still in the relationship? Let it go and move on.

      If your spouse is that batshit insecure/paranoid about you, why are you still in the relationship? Let it go and move on.

      Life is too short to stay in a really crappy relationship.

      Been there, done that, and, yes, there are our kids in the middle, too.

      But, I can see the extreme Jerry Springer edge-cases of why you'd stay in, too, if it is the only way you can have time with your kids, for example (say other parent is foreign national, with family & resources outside of this country [could include Utah, Kentucky, etc], where he/she could bail with the kids before you could get the System to put the kibosh on it, etc), so I do understand it is not always so academically black-and-white...

    12. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-Marital Contracts.

      If you divorced someone because you just wanted something new, I wonder what might happen with that pre-marital contract they signed saying they won't go after your millions upon divorce. (or dog, or boat, or house..or whatever material items you don't want to lose)

      However, if you think your spouse is having an affair, and want a divorce based on that, I bet proof of the affair would keep any contract you want held in good standing when you serve them papers.

      IANAL

    13. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Is it?

      Yes. People like to have reasons to do stuff. You are not exempt from this.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:Honestly... by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      Relationships are organic. They can heal. In my opinion, giving up on a marriage simply due to a lack of trust is a sign of weakness of character. I'm not saying that there aren't any good reasons for divorce, because there are. (abuse and criminal conduct come to mind)

      I am saying that a marriage is a promise of "till death do us part". That should mean something.

    15. Re:Honestly... by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've clearly never been married. "proof of guilt" is not a moral or psychological issue: it's a *financial* one. If you can't prove your wife cheated on you, you may find yourself in a position where your ex-wife's now shacking up with your boss, your kids are taken away from you, your ex-wife has half your stuff and you owe alimony for the rest of your life.

      I'm not making any moral judgements on anyone involved here, but the reason the knives come out during divorces is not because people are petty and vindictive. Well, they are petty and vindictive, but things get really vicious because gigantic piles of cash are involved.

    16. Re:Honestly... by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to sue for half the house proceeds or win sole custody of the kids if you can't prove to the court that your other half was cheating?

      You might be content to just walk away and move on but some people feel they have something worth fighting for.

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    17. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In NJ, there is a formula for child support. You make X, spouse makes Y. You have custody Z%, spouse has custody (100 - Z)%. Payment is $W biweekly.

    18. Re:Honestly... by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to change your feelings and separate from your significant other, you just have to divorce before you shack up with your neighbor. Pretty fair IMO, it's a perfectly reasonable contract of exclusivity. Personally I find more of an issue with the idea of say a girl leaching off of my money, living under my roof, using a car I paid for, then sleeping with someone else.

    19. Re:Honestly... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      As I understand, it doesn't work that way where I live. Marital infidelity is not a crime, and therefore the concept of "guilt" is irrelevant in divorce cases here.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:Honestly... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That is somewhat of a Soviet legacy. Divorce was comparably easy in the USSR.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    21. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about infidelity, crime, or divorce cases. Look at the question I was answering.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    22. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, relationships ARE organic. Some wither and die. You want to keep animating the corpse long after it's rotted.
       
      My marriage vows did not include that "till death do us part" nonsense.
       
      But if you care, 25 blissful years and counting.

    23. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Dissolving a marriage, which may involve community property, is a lot more complicated than breaking up with your summer-romance girlfriend.

      As regards to "why continue the relationship", the GP apparently missed "Based on the battle of a divorcing Gloucester County couple..."

    24. Re:Honestly... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about infidelity, crime, or divorce cases. Look at the question I was answering.

      Ok...

      If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship ?

      Because proof of guilt is important.

      If not divorce or infidelity in a marriage, then exactly what relationship were you talking about severing? And for what cause? It looks like I'm not the only one missing your point, so perhaps some clarification is in order? <shrug>

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    25. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If not divorce or infidelity in a marriage, then exactly what relationship were you talking about severing?

      If somebody wants to break up with somebody else, they typically would like to have a solid factual reason why.

      Here's what people want to avoid:

      "I'm breaking off our relationship because you come home late every night, I think you're with somebody else!"

      "Umm... I'm working overtime so I can pay the mortgage off sooner. See, here's my check that's way higher than normal. Well, I'm not guilty, but since you don't trust me it's over. Bye!"

      I think my post is unclear because it's deceptively simple: Instincts aren't always correct.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    26. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.s I wanted to thank you for asking me for clarification. Too often people here go into argue mode anyway. It's refreshing to have a discussion and not an argument.

      Have a good weekend. MT-NJG.

    27. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence you humans need to learn from us Vulcans. Your relationships need to be more....logical.

    28. Re:Honestly... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it is not as fixed as you seem to think.

      There's a reasons there's a "Comments, Rebuttals, and Justification for Deviations" section on the worksheets (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/ix-d.pdf and http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/ix-c.pdf), and that http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf uses the magic words "should" and "discretionary".

    29. Re:Honestly... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If a relationship is to the point of a person needing to track their significant other's movements with a GPS device, why do people even bother continuing the relationship?

      Because proof of guilt is important.

      Physical location is not proof of anything except physical location.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    30. Re:Honestly... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Instinct is even less compelling.

      There, are we done nitpicking the point I wasn't making?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    31. Re:Honestly... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yeah, they shouldn't have used guilt wrongdoing would be the correct term in his response.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Honestly... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'd knock it up 1
      Instincts are seldom correct.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Honestly... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's just one facet of a case.

      What if you have been told by your wife you aren't going there? this would show that you are going where you claimed you weren't going.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:Honestly... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someones cheating on you, but you will trust them? to what? not cheat on you? what about protection from diseaes? what about spending your money?

      If someone cheat on you, they are , by definition, not trustworthy.

      I would see certain case where I could let it pass. Like if my spouse was in a war zones, and just needed comfort. But those are extreme cases.

      "I am saying that a marriage is a promise of "till death do us part". That should mean something."
      Nice of you to lump all marriage into your narrowly defined view.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:Honestly... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Simple: Don't get married. Period. It's primarily a religious scam anyway. It isn't required for anything important you can't get some other way, other than the crocodile respect you get from people who believe in a magic sky fairy.

      Look into power of attorney; contracts; provide insurance policies, wills, buy each other gifts of whatever - property, etc... hand over and/or keep receipts... then there's no doubt, ever, about who owns what, or where things go when time comes.

      And as for kids... well, if you're inclined to have them, lard knows marriage won't protect them (or you) from anything. What it *does* do is opens the kids up to being participants in bitter property / rights fights. It won't save them from acrimony if someone cheats, or anything else, really. Marriage does, however, provide a goodly number of society's #1 most dangerous parasite, the lawyer, with guaranteed incomes.

      Marriage is a dangerous institution hanging on because people aren't generally smart enough to look it in the face and see it for what it really is. A really nasty series of traps.

      You don't need marriage to: own or share money and/or property. Procreate. Raise kids. Live together. Have sex. Not have much sex (pretty common in long term relationships, married or not.) Contribute to charity. Go to the movies. Leave each other money and/or property.

      Marriage doesn't (any longer) give you a definite right to punish (or make many other choices for them... when they can drink, drug, be educated about sex) your kids; to expect sex; to expect or command obedience; etc. You may *think* you can do these things, but the courts will show you differently if push comes to shove.

      Marriage closes doors by you voluntarily screwing yourself. For instance, the government has many immensely stupid laws, such as anti-polygamy laws. You can only marry one person, according to the feeble old fossils in government. But you *can* live with multiple partners, make a great life at it, and have no problems at all. That's just one example of how your freedom to control your relationships is actually severely diminished by the giving the state the "marriage handle" on you.

      Were things actually sensible, the state would have no voice in "marriage" at all. It has no legitimate interest; all it does is screw things up for the citizens. You want a contract, that's something else -- and it should be something else.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  12. You own your spouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the gist of it. And in this country, where you can't simply kill a cheating spouse, you need everything you can to avoid paying alimony and child support when the other spouse fucks everything to hell. The child should default to the non-cheating spouse (or the one that doesn't have evidence of cheating against them).

    Hence, allowing GPS trackers on spouses is a good thing.

    1. Re:You own your spouse by LittlePud · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the child even belongs to the non-cheating spouse to begin with...

    2. Re:You own your spouse by harl · · Score: 1

      No the gist of it is that he owns his car and is free to do what he wants with it.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  13. best gps for tracking the wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't bother with all of this high-tech electronic-tracking-device-attachment-to-a-vehicle thing. If you want to know where your wife is or has been, just watch your online bank/credit-card statement.

  14. Actually, it makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ruling makes sense from a pure law perspective: If I own or have a legal connection to the car, I'm basically choosing to track my own vehicle's movements, whether it happens to be myself or my spouse or anyone else driving it. In fact, most people here would probably be outraged if told they couldn't do this with their own vehicle.

  15. Tracking objects you own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To clarify, the article doesn't state that you can arbitrarily track your spouse wherever he/she goes (the court's full decision isn't linked, though). The person who installed the tracking device owned the car.

  16. How about GPS tracking the judge? by Bardwick · · Score: 1

    If I track the Judge with GPS, would that be legal?

    1. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Sure, if you own his car.

    2. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Only if you partially own his car.

    3. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I track the Judge with GPS, would that be legal?

      Only if you are married to said Judge.

    4. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll get away with geo cookies.

    5. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Do you own or have partial ownership of the judge's car? The person in this case owned the vehicle and thus it is perfectly legal for them to install a GPS tracking device on it. Did you have anything to add other than some stupid strawman?

    6. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by warchildx · · Score: 1

      what if the bank has a financial interest in the car, and instead of the judge, it is you. is it ok for the bank to put a tracking device on your car until the loan is completely paid off? this is starting to get really grey area, and freaking me out about people putting tracking devices on our (the people) stuff without our knowledge, and without a warrant.

    7. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      If your credit is shitty enough, the bank will put in a lowjack.

    8. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      If they are the owners of the car, yes it is okay for them to do so. I hate to break it to you but personal property rights allow people to put tracking devices on what they own.

    9. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      I do not have the title to my car, bank owns it. Wife has no income, if the car is in my name she has no financial stake so I should be safe. /peaksthroughthestrawman.

    10. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      That's a very good and very relevant question. My brother's best friend moved out of state many years ago. Shortly after arriving at his new home, he financed a new car. A year or two later, he wanted to move back to his home town. Unfortunately, the bank that financed his car wouldn't let him take it out of state, and he still owed more on the car than it was worth, thanks to the instant depreciation when you drive a car off the lot, so he couldn't just sell it. In a case like this, you could possibly get away with moving with car and not telling the bank (just have the bill sent to a service that will automatically forward your mail and pay the bill electronically), but if they had GPS tracking on the car...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    11. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have some legal or financial connection to the object where the tracker would be placed? Also, is said object accessible on public grounds?

    12. Re:How about GPS tracking the judge? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The what? he isn't in state, so there isn't much they could actually do. I mean, they could stop taking his payment, I suppose. And how do they stop him from taking out of state road trips? Would that even be upheld?

      OTOH, I moved out of state with a new care and it wasn't until a few years latter did I even think to wonder if I broke the contract.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Wife or private investigator? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    This ruling is very backwards IMO. This is the part that bothers me the most:
    "many of whom hire private investigators" AND "investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas"

    I don't have a problem with a wife installing one on her husband's car while it's on their private property. I don't even have a problem with an investigator installing it there as long as the wife is present at the time. If you're married, the car is partially hers anyway. If you can't stand the thought of something like that happening, don't get married (or live together), and your stuff will never be partially hers.

    However, I have a big problem with anyone messing with someone else's car while the car is on public streets. Does anyone else think this is completely backwards?

    1. Re:Wife or private investigator? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It makes sense like it is. The couple was divorcing, so probably don't live together anymore. If the wife (or PI) goes to the husband's house and installs the GPS while the car is in his driveway, she is trespassing. That would mean a law has been broken, and therefore the installation of the device could be illegal. Having a PI install a GPS on your own car, when the car is not on someone else's private property, makes perfect sense.

    2. Re:Wife or private investigator? by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 1

      This ruling is very backwards IMO. This is the part that bothers me the most:
      "many of whom hire private investigators" AND "investigators make sure GPS devices are installed in cars on public streets and not private areas"

      I don't have a problem with a wife installing one on her husband's car while it's on their private property. I don't even have a problem with an investigator installing it there as long as the wife is present at the time. If you're married, the car is partially hers anyway. If you can't stand the thought of something like that happening, don't get married (or live together), and your stuff will never be partially hers.

      However, I have a big problem with anyone messing with someone else's car while the car is on public streets. Does anyone else think this is completely backwards?

      It's hard to say for certain without asking the person who was quoted, but I think they are talking about installs when the spouse who hired them is not present. If the suspected spouse is gone and the car being tracked is at a shared house while the spouse who hired them is present, I doubt the investigator would have a problem with doing the install. Like as not they are talking about situations for the most part wherein the couple is already living separately. New Jersey is not a no-fault only state and this evidence would be used to file on grounds of adultry.

      --
      All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    3. Re:Wife or private investigator? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I'm actually in-between... if it's your property, what difference does it make where you have it "modified?"

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Wife or private investigator? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      So a guy isn't allowed to start dating after he's already completely separated and moved out? That makes even less sense. Proof of adultery should be required BEFORE the separation.

    5. Re:Wife or private investigator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It matters if you have it modified in a location that breaks some other law (for example if your agent trespasses to gain acess to the car). In the case of divorce this could easily come up.

      What if the cheating sopuse began living at their sibling's home, and therefore parking the marrages's jointly owned car on that sibling's proporty. Should it be legal for the authorised agent of the other spouse to enter the cheating spouse's sibling's proporty to plant the tracker without the sibling's permission?

    6. Re:Wife or private investigator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a guy isn't allowed to start dating after he's already completely separated and moved out? That makes even less sense. Proof of adultery should be required BEFORE the separation.

      No, actually, they aren't. At least not in a whose-fault state. Legal seperation has nothing to do with a physical seperation, remember.

    7. Re:Wife or private investigator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are married until the day the divorce is final. Moving out or separating does not void the marriage certificate and need for fidelity.

      That would be like you entering into a contract with your cell phone company and then turning off your cell phone and not using it anymore because you don't like your carrier anymore. Until you go through the phone calls to have your contract with the carrier terminated, they will continue to charge you for the service whether you use it or not and it is completely legal for them to do so as the contract is still valid. Exact same thing, until the proceedings that finalize the divorce happen, you are still married and anything you do can be used in the legal proceedings.

    8. Re:Wife or private investigator? by fermion · · Score: 1
      I see it this way. If a person owns or partially owns or has legal rights on the vehicle, they have the right to use the car. This would typically include such rights to install tires, radio, etc. The location does not matter. Now such things would normally be discussed.

      The problem, in my mind, would arise when a PI, though authorized to make alterations to the car, does so on private property not owned by the suspicious spouse. For instance, a spouse might go to see their extramarital lover on park in said lovers driveway. The jilted spouse probably does not have right to that driveway, and therefore the PI would be trespassing. However if the spouse conducting the affair parks down the block in a public space, then there is no issue.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:Wife or private investigator? by rkww · · Score: 1

      Waiting for a case where the wife or significant other finds the device and disabled it, then the car is stolen.

    10. Re:Wife or private investigator? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I worded that last sentence poorly. When I said "anyone", I meant anyone who wasn't a partial owner of the car. Basically, if one of the owners is present and either making the modification or supervising it, then it should be legal IMO. Otherwise, it should not.

      I don't care as much about the location, but the city I live in has laws against making modifications to cars anywhere but a licensed auto shop. You can't even change your oil in your own private driveway, and definitely not on a public street. Those laws are probably unconstitutional, but the US Constitution has never stopped city hall from harassing people they want harassed.

    11. Re:Wife or private investigator? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I agree that trespassing is no good. I'm referring to private property owned by both spouses. After all, it doesn't make any sense to get proof the husband is dating someone else AFTER they have separated and moved into separate residences.

    12. Re:Wife or private investigator? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      However, I have a big problem with anyone messing with someone else's car while the car is on public streets. Does anyone else think this is completely backwards?

      like everyone else has said: joint ownership. i can ask someone, and sign paperwork that gives someone permission to "mess" with my jointly owned / used car, wherever it may be.

    13. Re:Wife or private investigator? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You are right. Private investigators should not be allowed to put a GPS on a vehicle unless one of the owners is present.

      They should also loose their bond if they put it on the wrong car. PI are notoriously sloppy, and they often make judgments that have no basis in reality. Of course when they gibe there opinion to a client, they in no way try I change the incorrect belief that what they are saying is factual.

      There great for taking pictures, and researching background. Everything else is a huge crap shoot.

      Or so that was my opinion in the early 80s when I thought I want to be ones I met a few and researched the industry.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Wife or private investigator? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with a wife installing one on her husband's car while it's on their private property. I don't even have a problem with an investigator installing it there as long as the wife is present at the time.

      What difference does it make if the wife is there or not?

      I have people work on my car when I'm not there. What difference does it make if it's replacing an engine mount or installing a GPS tracking device?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    15. Re:Wife or private investigator? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I meant that if you are the one authorizing or performing the modification, it shouldn't matter if it's on public property or your own property.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  18. So low tech by wintercolby · · Score: 1

    If you wanted to track your spouse's location, it would be easy enough to give him or her a cell phone that has some form of Family Locator service or install an app on an iPhone or Android. Really it's not that hard. You could give them the phone and call it a gift. If you're that paranoid, I must say, it's probably already time to get a divorce and hire a psychologist. Remember, distrust in a relationship is more often a sign of what you're willing to do than what they are.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:So low tech by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Remember, distrust in a relationship is more often a sign of what you're willing to do than what they are.

      You can reach a point where you trusted them just fine, and then you find out one way or another that they betrayed that trust and are cheating on you.

      At that point, what then? They've ALREADY betrayed you, and haven't told you the truth. The relationship is already unhinged. Putting a GPS tracker on the car isn't about trust, its simply evidence gathering for the inevitable court proceedings.

    2. Re:So low tech by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Yes, you either already know there's a problem, and are building a case or you're paranoid. I was addressing the second case. I have known people who regularly cheated that were horribly jealous and possessive, the comment was more directed towards people like that.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
  19. Re:Well, if it's your car, you should be able to.. by bws111 · · Score: 1

    The system they were trying to sell you was for theft recovery. If a car is stolen it is normally reported to the police. The system you apparently wanted was the 'BMW Vigilante Assist Program.'

  20. appropriate conditions by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    translates to "for no particular reason"

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  21. Time to start tracking Poilce Officers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a tax payer I have a financial connection to each Police Car. I can now place GPS devices on the local Police cars and track their whereabouts. This will help justify the need for more or less Police officers. This will help financially strapped counties.

  22. OH SNAP!!! BARDWICK GOT FUCKING TOLD!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barwick, you just got smacked the fuck up for trying to be a smart ass.

    Love it when slashbots get owned.

  23. what I want to know: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it ok if I "accidentally" try to stick it in my wife's pooper while doing her doggy-style?

  24. Bad summary by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today.

    No, that is not what the panel ruled. The panel ruled that someone with at least partial ownership of a vehicle may install, or cause to be installed, a GPS tracking device even if said person is not the primary user of said vehicle.
     
    This ruling is very narrow and does not address placing a GPS tracking device in a car one does not own.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. There's a lot of precedence where spouses can track each other, and it is largely based on shared property. Installing a keylogger on the family PC, for instance.

    2. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. It's not even about tracking spouses as TFA indicates. He said that *I* can legally track the whereabouts of *my* car.

      It's like if it was a car... never mind.

  25. Title of articles is inflammatory by hellfire · · Score: 1

    The titles of both the /. post and the original article imply it's okay to track your spouse, as if you own them and can follow them around, which is not true without their consent. The summary clarifies this as does the original article body. #1 vehicles are in public places and #2 the person who hired the investigator owns or partially owns the car.

    Essentially you are asking a private investigator to put a GPS tag on your private property. Also, if the car needs to be tagged, they want to make sure they are in a public place so they don't get slapped with trespassing on private property for any reason. Seems to me like a clear cut case. It's all about the spin.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Title of articles is inflammatory by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The titles of both the /. post and the original article imply it's okay to track your spouse, as if you own them and can follow them around, which is not true without their consent. The summary clarifies this as does the original article body. #1 vehicles are in public places and #2 the person who hired the investigator owns or partially owns the car.

      hmmm. there's a law that says i can't follow my spouse around?

  26. I watched The Sopranos by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    GPS wouldn't be there very long. From what I've seen New Jersey residents are used to looking under their cars before they start them.

  27. Heard a private investigator say once by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you're at the point of hiring me to follow your spouse, your marriage is already over.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Heard a private investigator say once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I didn't expect you to read TFA - this is slashdot, after all - but couldn't you even get to the second sentence of the summary?

      Based on the battle of a divorcing Gloucester County couple

    2. Re:Heard a private investigator say once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're at the point of hiring me to follow your spouse, your marriage is already over.

      So what happens when the hired investigator finds nothing? The innocent spouse divorces the hiring spouse for being crazy/paranoid?

    3. Re:Heard a private investigator say once by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that if you're suspicious enough to pay someone to catch your spouse cheating, you already know they are and you also know it's not something you can forgive.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Heard a private investigator say once by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      But as long as I install my own tracking device there is still hope right?

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    5. Re:Heard a private investigator say once by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hope you won't have to pay them anything for the rest of your life? yes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. I track my ex-wife and my lawyer is fine with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use a cellphone which I gave to our child during a divorce. The carrier tracking service by Verizon notifies me anytime they entered of left designated zones. I know when she leaves the city, the state, visits her boyfriend, and when she lies about her whereabouts. But I'm not actually tracking her. I am tracking my young toddler child. She had disappeared for weeks with our child which started the divorce process. A lawyer was able to force her back.

    Since then I bought my child a cellphone which is kept in the diaper bag for what I've called "emergencies" since she can't afford a cellphone. It is locked to only call myself or my parents and to only take incoming calls from the same. It cannot text. But it does have GPS which I pay $10 extra a month for with real time updates anytime I want. I usually don't look just because I don't want the battery to go dead because she doesn't charge it, and it could be gone for a week at a time.

    If the cell tower changes it checks GPS. If GPS crosses a zone then I get an email alert with a map picture of the location and a logged date and time. I don't hide the phone, but have given it out openly. I haven't told her it is running GPS, but the phone is for my child, not her. I have even made clear that if she leaves our child somwhere and goes elsewhere, then the phone is to stay with whoever is watching our child, not her.

    I won't let her go running off with my child in the middle of the night again. Too many parents lose their children to a parental abduction and never see them again for 20 years. She might ditch the cellphone and run. But I will know when and where my child was when it was last moved. Is this legal? My lawyer says that I have nothing to worry about.

  29. Wait till... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People start seeing guys put devices under cars on public roads and start calling the bomb squad in, laws will change this ruling when to much money is spent on false positives.

  30. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF happened to the 4th ammendment to the Constitution.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

      Three problems.
      1) It was her property she was tracking.
      2) The government did not do this.
      3) Being secure in your person has nothing to do with a spouse or her agent following or otherwise tracking someone on public roads.

      The bill of rights restricts what the government, and in particular the Federal government can do.
      It does not directly deal with what people can do themselves or to each other.
      As long as no murder, rape, theft, fraud, assault, or related crimes like destruction of property or trespass or the like happened it is most likely, or should be legal.

      People have some really wacky ideas about what 'rights' they have.
      In the US rights basically boil down to (or should/did):

      "do whatever the fuck you want and everyone else will do the same as long as you don't mess with other peoples shit."
      That's really about it.
      Property rights, restrictions on what government can do, free speech, assembly, etc..
      It all the same basic idea. Everyone should let everyone else do whatever they want other than actual crimes of murder, rape, theft and the related assualt, destruction of property, trespass, etc.

      You don't have the right to not be offended,
      You don't have the right to not be photographed in public,
      You don't have the right to 'privacy' over something that can be viewed from public land or public right-of-way.
      You don't have the right to stop people from saying bad things about you.
      You don't have the right to punish people who don't break any laws and can call you out with proof of what a huge lair, criminal adulterer pig cop you are.

    2. Re:Huh? by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      You don't have the right to not be photographed in public,

      But the photo can't be used for commercial purposes.

      You don't have the right to 'privacy' over something that can be viewed from public land or public right-of-way.
      You don't have the right to stop people from saying bad things about you.

      As long as what they say is true. If someone calls you a bastard pedophile, as long as they can prove your parents weren't married before you were born and you engage in unacceptable private meetings with kids, that's perfectly legal to say. Otherwise they can be held to damages.

      Procter & Gamble, the soap manufacturer, had a big problem with people who were claiming the company supported Satanism and their 'Man In The Moon' logo was a Satanic symbol. (What this has to do with the quality of their products is beyond me.) One rumor was that the President of P&G appeared on a Saturday edition of Phil Donohue and admitted that the company supported Satanism, despite the fact that (1) He'd never appeared on the show; (2) Donohue did not do Saturday shows; (3) No such show ever happened. Apparently it was some Amway distributors who were trying to besmirch P&G's spotless reputation with libelous insults. P&G sued and got a large judgement.

      You don't have the right to punish people who don't break any laws and can call you out with proof of what a huge lair, criminal adulterer pig cop you are.

      Again, only if it's true. Libel is not only a civil offense - the party who has been defamed can sue - but it's also a crime. Usually not invoked unless you say something really bad about someone or you malign a dead person who has a good reputation. Claiming Mother Theresa died of a venereal disease or was a hooker, that George Washington was a coward, or that FDR was faking he was crippled because he was actually collaborating with the Nazis, are the sort of things that if you tried to claim were true, might be serious enough if some prosecutor was offended to get you tried for criminal libel and if convicted, jail time. Libeling dead people is considered very bad because they can't respond and if they have a good reputation it damages it. Now you can libel Saddam Hussein or Stalin or Hitler all you want, their reputation is so bad they basically are considered undefamable.

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  31. Personal GPS jamming devices therefore legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for making sure all private citizens have the right to use gps jamming devices.

    Bet its not legal though.

    1. Re:Personal GPS jamming devices therefore legal by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Silly rabbit, SNIFF, manipulate, but don't jam.

      Controlling what the enemy trusts because THEY nstalled it is better than stopping it from working.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  32. wait a second by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    so... were they cheating or not

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  33. Why does it matter if she's there? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    If the wife has an ownership interest, it's just fine. It's no different from breaking down, hitching a ride home, and calling a tow truck to tell them where to find it so they can take it to the shop. Why does it matter if the wife is present or not? If her name is on the title, she can remotely give others permission to do whatever with the car, (short of selling it, that usually requires a notary.)

  34. This would be illegal in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm#16.06

    Sec. 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE. (a) In this section:

    (1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.

    (2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.

    (b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.

    (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

    (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person:

    (1) obtained the effective consent of the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle before the electronic or mechanical tracking device was installed;

    (2) assisted another whom the person reasonably believed to be a peace officer authorized to install the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency; or

    (3) was a private investigator licensed under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, who installed the device:

    (A) with written consent:

    (i) to install the device given by the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle; and

    (ii) to enter private residential property, if that entry was necessary to install the device, given by the owner or lessee of the property; or

    (B) pursuant to an order of or other authorization from a court to gather information.

    (e) This section does not apply to a peace officer who installed the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency.

    Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.828, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

    Amended by:

    Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1122, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

  35. Re:This would be illegal in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > owned or leased by another person

    sorry, coward, but it was her car, too.

  36. Patent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for me to patent the gps-enabled wedding ring.

  37. The whole point here is very simple by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

    If it's my computer, I can install a keylogger to record all keystrokes, or spying software to determine what places were visited; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even the police do not need a warrant to install such things on their own computers. If it's my car - or I'm co-owner - I can install a 'bumper beeper', a tattler to determine where the vehicle went, or a GPS tracking device; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even when car rental companies did something similar to this a while ago, the only thing that was illegal about it was they couldn't use the information to impose a 'fine' on renters who drove vehicles faster than the speed limit.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  38. Re:This would be illegal in Texas by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm#16.06

    Sec. 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE. (a) In this section:

    (1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.

    (2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.

    (b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.

    The car was owned by the person who installed the device, ergo this statute does not apply and it's legal in Texas. You can always put tracking equipment on vehicles you own. This was humorously treated in the cartoon King of the Hill (which coincidentally takes place in Texas) where the drivers got mad because Mr. Strickland, the owner of the propane company, had installed 'tattlers' on the trucks he owned to see where the drivers were taking the vehicles. Drivers didn't like it and complained, but the practice is perfectly legal. They're his trucks, he has every right to monitor them. If it's my car, I can monitor it if I choose to do so.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.