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."
..is to use a GPS jammer.
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..
..is to use a GPS jammer.
Then, you can't use a GPS navigator to get to where you're going.
Anything that follows this form usually doesn't: It will only be used when ________.
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.
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
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.
If I track the Judge with GPS, would that be legal?
You're assuming that the child even belongs to the non-cheating spouse to begin with...
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?
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
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.'
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.
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"
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
so... were they cheating or not
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.)
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."
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.
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.
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.