Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Gov't To Disclose GPS Tracking Data
First time accepted submitter concealment sent in this link which reads: "United States law enforcement officials have been utilizing data provided by global positioning satellite systems to track down individual suspects, without having to demonstrate probable cause before a judge first — that much is known. Rights groups such as the ACLU have wondered, just how much of that goes on? The rights group's investigation of this practice has inadvertently triggered a renewal of the debate over privacy policy versus public disclosure, and whether it's possible for an agency or other entity to reveal data that could lead to further revelation of personally identifiable data (PID), without officially violating privacy. The final outcome could set a new precedent for privacy policy, not just by the government but for enterprises as well."
I thought GPS was a one way thing?
Devices don't connect to the satellite.. so how is the GPS system providing tracking info to anyone? The logical assumption is they are talking about GPS tracking devices being used ... but the article is written as if they are pulling the data off the satellites or something.
The clumsy wording completely distracted me from the actual point of the article! .. I'm such a geek :(
The police don't give a damn whether or not your rights are oppressed. They have exactly one priority and that's "finishing the job". Justice or injustice, it doesn't matter to them -- what matters is that the work is "done", and the boss is satisfied.
It's no surprise at all that they will undermine basic civil rights -- even demonize them -- in their attempt to "finish the job". It doesn't take a genius to realize that the goal of law enforcement isn't justice at all -- it's maintaining power for those who control the business of government.
Sounds like Catch-22.
I imagine the GPS traking data to be a very boring file comprised of the following
(device id), ((ime), (GPS coords)
Unless you know who (device id) belongs to, its not going to be of much interest.
In order to obtain data without a warrant, the authorities must have a convincing argument that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to that data. By claiming the personal privacy exemption to the FOIA to prevent releasing the data, the government is contradicting it's previous claim that they didn't need a warrant to get the data in the first place.
Over the night, at another address most of the day, all we have to do is look up who lives at that night address, maybe see if he works at that day address. Now we know everywhere he's been.
Now say it often goes from day address to another address for an hour, then to night address. Gym? Girlfriend? Mistress?
The only reason the RFID wasn't pushed with more force is that through cell-phones and other GPS services, we have effectively volunteered to have implanted something far worse than the RFID - embedded not in the flesh, but in the psyche. As for "probable cause", such is now defined better in terms of "penal whimsy".
Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
It amazes me, but understandable, the tenacity that organizations desire to undermine privacy. Privacy is a concept. How do you hack a concept? I imagine the problem is when the concept is manifested through case law. Hacking of privacy must have to do with studying case law and then arguing that privacy has been defined and certain concepts are not included in the old world understanding of "privacy".
The lack of technology was not the issue for why privacy came to be - essentially, there is no way to know private information with primitive technology so by default we will grant privacy. So, why is it that now we have technology, the concept somehow is antiquated? Isn't this a slippery slope that all generations have to struggle with?
I am too emotionally compromised at this moment to comment on anything 'quote' Law Enforcement 'unquote' today.
Because of the Raid on the Gibson Factory, the violation of it's sacred ground, and the unspeakable atrocities committed there, I am observing 3 days of silence.
Hopefully, I can somehow come to grips and resume life again.
Our best wishes and prayers go out to Gibson, the workers and their families and all those wonderful guitars held in captivity.
Is the present case limited to the situation where law enforcement bugs your car with a tracking device without a warrant, or would it also cover other warrantless tracking related to GPS? For example, requesting location data from a target's cell phone company, or from a target's automobile safety system (OnStar and similar), or even from a smartphone app company like Zynga that might store location data from the target's cell phone as a "business record".
Some of these scenarios obviously *should* require a warrant on the part of law enforcement, but do they in today's world? Who even knows or cares what's in the privacy agreement of each different app on their smartphone ("we reserve the right to share customer information upon request of law enforcement and other parties...").
We can't disclose whether or not we're breaking the law, because to do so may break the law.
Judge: Release the records.
Government: No.
Judge: What?? I said release them!
Government: We said no.
Judge: Release them, or else!
Government: Or else what?
Judge: ...
[End Of Line]