Two New Fed GPS Trackers Found On SUV

jcombel writes with this excerpt: "As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear oral arguments in a case Tuesday that could determine if authorities can track U.S. citizens with GPS vehicle trackers without a warrant, a young man in California has come forward to Wired to reveal that he found not one but two different devices on his vehicle recently. The 25-year-old resident of San Jose, California, says he found the first one about three weeks ago on his Volvo SUV while visiting his mother in Modesto, about 80 miles northeast of San Jose. After contacting Wired and allowing a photographer to snap pictures of the device, it was swapped out and replaced with a second tracking device. A witness also reported seeing a strange man looking beneath the vehicle of the young man’s girlfriend while her car was parked at work, suggesting that a tracking device may have been retrieved from her car. Then things got really weird when police showed up during a Wired interview with the man."

Comments

Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[elrous0]

When this reporter drove down to meet Greg and photograph the second tracker with photographer Snyder, three police cars appeared at the location that had been pre-arranged with Greg, at various points driving directly behind me without making any verbal contact before leaving.

After moving the photo shoot to a Rotten Robbie gas station a mile away from the first location, another police car showed up. In this case, the officer entered the station smiling at me and turned his car around to face the direction of Greg’s car, a couple hundred yards away. He remained there while the device was photographed. A passenger in the police car, dressed in civilian clothes, stepped out of the vehicle to fill a gas container, then the two left shortly before the photo shoot was completed.

I bet that reporter thought that sort of thing only happened in *other* countries before that day.

Re:Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[Spykk]

What sort of thing? Cops driving around? What part of those two paragraphs is supposed to be so sinister?

Re:Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[elrous0]

If you don't get that the point of this was to intimidate the reporter and discourage him from pursuing the story, you're either incredibly naive or you're being deliberately dense.

Re:Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[Spykk]

I think you are mistaken. The only thing that police could accomplish by intentionally trying to intimidate a reporter without being explicit enough to threaten him is to make the story that much jucier. Do you really believe that the officer brought a gas can and someone in civilian clothes along to go intimidate a reporter? He was likely giving someone who had run out of gas a ride and the reporter chose to interperet the encounter as some sort of nebulous conspiracy to get some publicity for the story.

Re:Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[TheMiddleRoad]

I've ridden in the front seat along with an officer. It's called a ride-along. It was as a curious citizen. Ask your local department if you can schedule one to learn about them and they way they operate.

Re:Welcome to the world of police intimidation

[newcastlejon]

But he did use either.

You wish you were this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

What does a citizen have to do to get this kind of personalized attention from the government? Most of the time they just ignore you unless it's time for them to steal money from your wallet.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[bmo]

>What does a citizen have to do to get this kind of personalized attention from the government?

Nothing.

--
BMO

Re:You wish you were this guy

[elrous0]

If he wants the cops to disappear, he should just dial 911 in a shitty neighborhood.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[OverlordQ]

> What does a citizen have to do to get this kind of personalized attention from the government?

In this guy's case? Buy the SUV of your drug dealer cousin who fled the country and then visit Tijuana

Re:You wish you were this guy

[canadian_right]

He may have a drug dealing cousin, but the police should need a warrant for this type of intrusive tracking.

Papers please.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[anagama]

Not just "nothing", but "nobody actually knows" because of all the secret legal interpretations (i.e., secret laws) Bush and Obama have been using. That's sort of worse than "nothing" because in a completely arbitrary system, you know to expect arbitrary abuse. But in ours, where the rule of law is supposed to mean something, there is a the sense that something has been lost.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[h4rr4r]

So why did they not get a warrant?
Either they have a good reason to get one, or this is bullshit.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[gurps_npc]

In this case, the reasons they were watched were:

1. Family member was a drug dealer

2. Anonymous tip that about a national security threat. On a guy with a middle eastern name.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[Khyber]

I guess you hadn't heard about the original story, which was some kid that was merely a friend of someone of 'interest' and he had a GPS device placed on his vehicle.

It was all over Reddit.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[rsmith-mac]

From TFA:

It's unclear if authorities obtained a warrant to track Gregâ(TM)s vehicle

Nowhere in the article does it say they don't have a warrant, merely that Wired doesn't know. Surveillance warrants don't require informing the suspect.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[X0563511]

You must have missed the part where they aren't required to tell you they have the warrant. We don't know if they did or not.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[bmo]

Oh look, it's the Just World Fallacy.

"They're doing something to you so obviously you did something wrong"

Next time you get called for jury duty, tell them you believe in a just world and that only bad people get arrested.

--
BMO

Re:You wish you were this guy

[anagama]

Obviously not, but today, Obama actively sought the Supreme Court's acquiescence in warrantless GPS tracking. So, Obama is actually responsible for this particular usage because it complies with his general policy goals. Do you seriously think Obama had no idea what was being argued in his name at the SCOTUS?

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Administration+Fights+to+Allow+Warrantless+GPS+Tracking/article22021.htm

Re:You wish you were this guy

[jtollefson]

Policy don't need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on a car. There's a case being heard by the Supreme Court today that is directly about this. Thanks NPR for the heads up! http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142032419/do-police-need-warrants-for-gps-tracking-devices

Re:You wish you were this guy

[bmo]

Because I have a secret army that goes around and mods me up. I swear it's true.

--
BMO

Re:You wish you were this guy

[Hatta]

If you don't think the entire Supreme Court is staffed with politicians you haven't been paying attention. The SCOTUS is entirely partisan.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[networkBoy]

I want some of these on my truck.
Those LiPoly batteries are not cheap and I could use some for my RC Airplane...
I figure just unplug the battery while driving around, drop the receiver out the window and keep the battery.
Wash rinse repeat.
Sell on E-bay for step 2
aannnnnnnnnnnnd:
3) Profit!

Re:You wish you were this guy

[bky1701]

Kind of makes the requirement to have a warrant useless if the public can't verify that they really had one, don't you think? Opens all sorts of nasty holes, like warrants being issued after the fact, or "we have one, we promise."

Re:You wish you were this guy

[Score Whore]

Partisan is not the same as politician.

Re:You wish you were this guy

[anagama]

So? That certainly isn't dispositive as GPS is arguably quite different than beepers which required an officer to actually follow the person around. At least Justice Beyers gets that:

"The question that I think people are driving at, at least as I understand it and certainly share the concern, is that if you win this case then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States," Breyer said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/high-court-troubled-by-1219884.html

Re:You wish you were this guy

[TWX]

You'd think that if they were smarter, they'd find a way to recharge this thing off of the vehicle's electrical system, like using the wiring for the backup lights or something, and they'd make it look less like a pelican case or a radio with an obvious antenna... That way legitimate warrants for monitoring or surveillance don't degenerate into something like this.

something interesting that's not often discussed is that radio receivers, by their very nature, inevitably also transmit, based on the frequencies they're receiving. It should be possible to build a GPS bug sweeper based on this principle. I don't have nearly enough of a radio background to do it, but I'm certain that there are HAMs out there who could figure it out...

Police Ssurveillance

[MyLongNickName]

A serious question, one that I hope folks take seriously because I truly cannot answer this:

If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?

I struggle for an answer myself. It feels wrong, but as far as I can tell that isn't a valid legal argument.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[Riceballsan]

24/7 Surveillance on both public and private property perhaps? Traditional surveillance has limits of where and when they can monitor you. A GPS on the other hand is monitoring you 24/7 regardless of district, private/public property etc...

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[elrous0]

If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?

In the same way that listening to a conversation by bugging a person is considered different from listening in on their conversation from a nearby table in a restaurant. One involves the compromise of someone's personal property and effects (protected by the 4th amendment) and the other doesn't.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[anyGould]

If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?

A couple points I could make:

• This is something that I am being held responsible for against my will (note how they tend to be very aggressive in retrieving these devices). It would be considered improper to force someone to document their whereabouts 24/7, and this does the same thing by automated means.
• Further to this, it's modifying my property without my consent - if it's illegal for me to attach one of these to another vehicle, it should also be illegal for the police to do so without a warrant.
• Traditional police surveillance cannot follow you onto private property, whereas GPS tracking can.
• GPS tracking is, in the end, a technological device, which can (and will) be defeated, spoofed, or just plain destroyed - it can't and shouldn't be considered as reliable a substitute for eyeball tracking. It's a safe bet that once it's widely known that these devices exist (and how to identify them) people will crack the case and either start sending false data back (or just reattach it to a Greyhound and leave it at that).

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[berashith]

I had been under the impression that there were rules limiting this once, until I was under investigation. The rub was this ... I wasnt really under investigation. If I was, then there would have been a warrant. There was not enough information to get a warrant on me, so the ATF was digging around watching every move I made, trying to figure out what the hell I was up to. The funny bit here is that I was up to nothing, and had to keep proving it.

I thought that the agent couldnt just sit and watch my house all the time, and he kind of confirmed that, but if I had gone to a movie, he would miraculously appear at my door as I was walking down the sidewalk. This was consistent, and it was obvious what he was doing, but if I questioned him he would give me a line about just happening to show up at the same time. This came complete with a smart ass smirk. So , I never was certain what the rules were, but I knew that I couldnt really get away from the game. The fact of the matter is ( at that time, way pre-9/11) , if the government has a reason to be suspicious they will be. You will have to prove yourself. The way I saw it then is that the system worked, even if it was a bit one sided and crooked.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[Crudely_Indecent]

I found one of these devices in a used car I purchased. The only reason I found it was because of some electrical issues I was having. Upon tracing the electrical issue I found the device (poorly) wired into the electrical system causing an intermittent short. After removing the device, and fixing the wiring harness - I showed it to my family who admitted that maybe my paranoia had some validity.

I've still got the device. I use it to win arguments against people who say the government doesn't do these sorts of things. Now that this is in the news, I guess I won't be having those arguments anymore.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[Amouth]

Isn't there a limit where it becomes harassment? It's one thing if they have enough evidence to get a warrant - it's another if they are fishing blindly.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[h4rr4r]

There should be such a law. You show me an efficient government and I will show you an oppressive one.

I was just following that logic to its inevitable conclusion.

A better answer would be the police could not follow him across state lines, nor onto private property. This device might. This device also is consuming the victims fuel to be transported and may be wired into his car risking damage to the electrical system.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[pixelpusher220]

If you can't see the difference between 'choosing' to carry a device and being unknowingly 'forced' to carry one...

Shall we talk about the data generated by a cell phone that is *supposed* to be protected. Except that the Gov is now pushing 18 month data retention requirements for the Cell phone companies...which they can then get without a court order.

The current law might be 'muddled' at best on such issues, a modern interpretation of privacy rights should clearly prohibit such actions.

Or do you say that just because they 'can' do something they should be allowed to do it?

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[JesseMcDonald]

The question he is posing is how tracking this single individual by GPS is any less legitimate than tracking him with an officer in an unmarked car.

The difference is that anyone can follow you around in an unmarked car on public property. Attaching a device of any sort to someone else's property, however, is normally illegal. Permission to do something which would normally be illegal is known as a warrant, and there are very specific rules regarding the situations under which warrants can be issued.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[CreatureComfort]

The other thing is that they only need a warrant to collect evidence that can be used in a trial. They can essentially do all the surveillance, tracking, etc. they want to without a warrant, then when they have a good idea of where to go to get the evidence they need in court (whether because they learned it through surveillance or planted it themselves) then they get the warrant to collect the evidence they will use against you in court.

The only magical thing about a warrant is that it makes the evidence admissible.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[travisd]

Or, more likely, your car had previously been sold thru a "Buy Here, Pay Here" type predatory dealership. They frequently use remote-shutdown devices to remotely disable vehicles of people who don't make their monthly payments. Another option is it was a poorly installed alarm. From all accounts, the GPS trackers that are being seen have plenty of on-board battery to not need any connection to the vehicle wiring. Post more details (like pics of the circuits) and I bet someone can tell you exactly what the device actually does...

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[pixelpusher220]

Don't forget it tracks unrelated people if you happen to lend your car to a friend.

THAT is quite clearly illegal surveillance.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[CanHasDIY]

I have a right to be "secure in [my] person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

Where is the search or seizure here? They aren't looking into your car, nor are they depriving you of its use.

Recording my movements to use against me in court is very much a search. Installing equipment on my vehicle for the purpose of said recording also constitutes a search.

Of course, so long as "intellectuals" continue to wax philosophic in regards as to what constitutes a search and what does not, the police state will continue to remove our rights until no more exist.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[inviolet]

"Easier" and "more universal" does NOT constitute "fundamentally different". No judge would buy that argument either. Technology makes things easier, that doesn't mean you make those things harder to do. Overruled.

Bruce Schneier has addressed this exact issue. He did a good job explaining it by drawing our attention to the difference between these two police activities:

• * officers randomly punch license plates into their computer to check for stolen cars, arrest warrants, etc.
• * automatic cameras mounted on the roof of police cars read and check a thousand license plates per hour per police cruiser

The difference is that we, as a society, consented to the low-grade surveillance of police officers driving around personally observing us... but the latter approach, with its many technological and informational advances, is a level of surveillance that we did not consent to, and WOULD NOT have consented to when we originally consented to the low-tech approach.

A good reason to withhold consent is that the collected information is not universally accessible. The information is kept by law enforcement for their own use. It will be used to prove you guilty, but you cannot use it (or even learn of its existence) to prove yourself not-guilty. It worsens the already serious power disparity between citizens and the executive branch.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[Wyatt Earp]

Nope, the phone's identity is the IMEI, which is in hardware on the phone, not on the SIM.

The SIM has the IMSI and MSISDN numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[Crudely_Indecent]

I've opened it up and identified the cellular radio, the logic board and the gps receiver. The gps antenna is well marked.

It was wired into the headlights/dashlight power, so it definitely wasn't a remote shutdown - unless they were trying to make the person crash by shutting off their headlights while they were going down the freeway at night (this is how I discovered there was a problem). It took about 20 minutes to trace the wires (in the parking lot of a gas station) to the fusebox. When I got to the fusebox and there weren't any blown fuses, I traced further and then I found it.

Whoever installed it wasn't particular about where they got power. As far as a battery goes, how long does your cell phone last on a single charge? I would imagine that a gps tracker could last longer because it's essentially sending text messages with location information which takes less power than voice communication, but it is still a finite charge. This thing was installed deep in the dash.

If you want pics, I'll send them to you. Say the word and I'll take photos when I get home.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[jamesh]

If you were in front of the US Supreme Court and they asked you how this is fundamentally different than tracking your car through traditional police surveillance, how would you answer?

In the same way that listening to a conversation by bugging a person is considered different from listening in on their conversation from a nearby table in a restaurant. One involves the compromise of someone's personal property and effects (protected by the 4th amendment) and the other doesn't.

Expectation of privacy is what's different. If you are sitting at home having a conversion you can reasonably expect that your conversation is private, and if a policeman was standing in your lounge room jotting down what you were saying then you'd know about it. You don't have the same expectation in a restaurant.

Sort of the same with GPS tracking on your car - if you are in the middle of nowhere with nobody around then you can reasonably expect that it's safe to do your drug exchange and nobody can easily prove you were there. If the police were following you, even discretely, then in the middle of nowhere you'd probably know about it and wouldn't do your private drug exchange.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[SETIGuy]

I, as a law-abiding citizen, notice the cops following me around, I'm probably going to find out why (honestly and non-confrontationally if possible).

You do realize that they are going to treat you like the dirt bag they think you are. If they're following you, or if they've put a GPS tracker on your car, you're already convicted in their minds. They're just looking for a way for the DA to convince a judge and jury.

Re:Police Ssurveillance

[flonker]

Regarding one particular device, from TFA:

With the factory battery âoeit will last 7-15 days reporting every hour in a good cellular coverage zone,â according to marketing literature describing it,

Also, regarding your device, you can check the FCC ID to see what exactly it is at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

Americans fear their government

[bazmail]

Americans fear their government more now than at any time in history. Kind of funny if your from foreignland.

Re:Americans fear their government

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans fear their government more now than at any time in history. Kind of funny if your from foreignland.

Well, the american government fucked over entire nations in the course of the last 50 years, it is poetic justice that in the last years they have turned their attention to fucking over their own citizens instead.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander no ?

Re:Americans fear their government

[khallow]

The problem with your argument is simply that the government side has demonstrated that it will abuse any power it gets. The solution is niether the "vicious cycle" nor the embracing of gullibility, but merely reducing the power of government.

Re:Americans fear their government

[Mephistophocles]

Uh, yeah - afraid he's right. All the examples you give happened during eras that pale in comparison to now. You have exactly zero personal freedom in the US today; the government can (and does) arrest and detain (without limit) its own citizens for no apparent reason and holds them indefinitely without trial. That fact alone makes the former statement you're questioning valid.

Re:Americans fear their government

[OzPeter]

... the government can (and does) arrest and detain (without limit) its own citizens for no apparent reason and holds them indefinitely without trial. ...

You left off "Assassinate"

Re:Americans fear their government

[uigrad_2000]

Americans fear their government more now than at any time in history. Kind of funny if your from foreignland.

You don't know much about American history, then.

200 years ago, The Federalist Party wanted a strong centralized government, and couldn't compete with the Democrat-Republican Party. People opposed any expansion of government at the time, and the idea that the federal government could run their own bank and carry their own debt was so hated by people that they lost every election from 1800 to 1820, and eventually folded. Today, if any politician wanted the government to shrink to that size, they would just be laughed away by all current parties (except maybe libertarian)

100 years ago, no one would have trusted the government to even regulate schools. Now, the government owns the school system, and teachers can't discuss their own religion because they are government employees!

75 years ago, there was incredible opposition to Social Security, even though the average SS check to a retired person would only be $17.50 per month, and would be based on that individual's wages over the previous 5 years. Today, SS provides enough income that many people live off of it, and all retired citizens are eligible.

In 1973, the Federal government wanted to implement a national speed limit. The current opinion was that it was obviously unconstitutional. Finally the law was made, but it wasn't a mandate. States only had to comply if they wanted to continue receiving federal funding for their roads. The courts decided to let it slide. This set the standard for how laws were crafted for 20 years. Today, our legislatures don't even give a second thought for stuff like this. The courts don't even challenge them.

If US citizens feared the government just half as much as they did 100 years ago, then we wouldn't have HUD. We wouldn't have the TSA. The FDA would only regulate selling drugs with incorrect labels, and there would be no banned substances list. We wouldn't have government schools. We wouldn't have the DMV. We wouldn't have Food Stamps or Welfare. We wouldn't have government backed student loans or government backed car companies. Our cars would not need to pass emission testing, and would not be limited by cafe standards. Our showers could put out any amount of water that the customer chose, and we wouldn't have laws regulating what method we use for generating light in our houses. And no one would even think of trying to implement government health care.

The security stuff is rather strange. I don't think the government should be allowed to track you any more than I am allowed to track you. If people wake up and suddenly realize that the government is controlling too much and becoming dangerous because of this, then it's a good discussion.

Re:Americans fear their government

[ukemike]

If US citizens feared the government just half as much as they did 100 years ago, then we wouldn't have HUD. We wouldn't have the TSA. The FDA would only regulate selling drugs with incorrect labels, and there would be no banned substances list. We wouldn't have government schools. We wouldn't have the DMV. We wouldn't have Food Stamps or Welfare. We wouldn't have government backed student loans or government backed car companies. Our cars would not need to pass emission testing, and would not be limited by cafe standards. Our showers could put out any amount of water that the customer chose, and we wouldn't have laws regulating what method we use for generating light in our houses. And no one would even think of trying to implement government health care.

Housing for the poor would still be tenement style, it would be impossible to tell the legitimate over the counter drugs from the latest patent medicine scam, a decent education would not be available to the poor or minorities, the DVMs are state institutions and we probably would still have them, millions more children would go hungry on a regular basis, a college education would be available only to the rich, our air would be unbreathably filthy, our water would be poison, we'd already be facing oil and water shortages, worker protections would be non-existant, diseases like mesothelioma would number in the hundred thousands per year instead of thousands per year, we would have no weekends, poverty would be the inevitable result of disabilities and the typical condition of the elderly, and we would still have massively disruptive economic cycles (depressions every 25 years or so).

Damn I miss the good-old-days.

No problem

[mr1911]

If you find a device like this on your car, have fun with it. Ship it across country - the government will know where the UPS guy is. Smash it open to see what is inside. Sell it on eBay. Report it to your local Sheriff as a suspicious device.

Seriously though...
Having cops follow you around to make their presence known is one hell of a way to use a covert surveillance device. The story isn't quite adding up.

Re:No problem

[characterZer0]

Mail it to the president.

Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[Jailbrekr]

1) Find a place where trains pass somewhat slowly
2) Wait for slow moving train
3) Stick tracker on outside of train car

Re:Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[jandrese]

4) Get ticketed for destruction of US Government property.

Re:Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[IMightB]

How do you know it's gov property? There's no identification on it. It's stuck to your property. I'd say you own it and are free to do with it as you please.

Re:Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[OzPeter]

4) Get ticketed for destruction of US Government property.

"Honest officer, the reason I am stopped here is that I was driving over that bumpy railroad crossing when I saw something fall off the back of my car. I was going to go back and look for it, but this train came through right there and then. After it had gone I couldn't see any car parts lying on the track."

Re:Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[Tactical Bacon]

I think I'd rather make them work a bit harder to get it back. I'd go to a party supply store, buy a big bunch of helium balloons, and send their tracker on a slow gentle float out of the city at 5,000 feet. This would be especially effective on days where the wind is heading offshore...

Re:Simple solution to dealign with these trackers

[pixelpusher220]

So you're saying that a covert operation would open itself to scrutiny to sue you over a couple hundred dollar device?

Or would they just try to put another one on the car?

Besides, unless you have it under visual surveillance...how do you prove *who* did what with it? And if you have it under visual surveillance 24/7..what's the point of the device in the first place?

RTA

[KyoMamoru]

In the article, it's stated that he bought the vehicle with cash from his wanted, drug dealing cousin. He even went as far to drive his cousin's wife to Mexico in the vehicle afterwards. It's no wonder that he was under surveillance.

Re:RTA

[royallthefourth]

The question here isn't whether the police ought to investigate criminal behavior, but whether they can use these tactics without a warrant. Big difference. If this guy really is so damn shady, they should have no trouble at all getting a warrant. If there's not even enough suspicion to get a warrant, he certainly deserves to be left alone.

Re:RTA

[pipedwho]

So why didn't the police get a warrant? Not enough direct evidence?

Re:Please note all voters

[h4rr4r]

So would anyone he will be running against.
The whole thing is rigged.

Re:If it was me

[royallthefourth]

Now you're a criminal for destroying government property and interfering with an investigation. Your life is ruined.

Could a cop hide in the boot too?

[pipedwho]

Would it be ok if a cop hid in the boot of your car without a warrant instead?

Re:Could a cop hide in the boot too?

[blindseer]

The "boot" is the part of the car opposite the bonnet of course. What's the matter, don't you speak English?

Are there any GPS scanners?

[Oswald McWeany]

Are there any scanning devices to scan your car to see if you have one of these hidden somewhere?

I'm sure you can do a thorough search from time to time- but if I want to know if I have one- is there a device I can buy to scan my car that isn't expensive?

I suspect all the bad guys who are really trying to hide will just run GPS blockers on their cars.

Re:Are there any GPS scanners?

[PPH]

Are there any scanning devices to scan your car to see if you have one of these hidden somewhere?

Sort of. Most of these periodically report in their recorded data via GPRS or something similar. There are ways of detecting these communications. I have a cheap pocket FM radio that goes absolutely berserk whenever a nearby GSM or CDMA phone or other device transmits. It makes a pretty good wireless device detector. Of course, there are more professional ways of detecting such equipment.

If its a GPS only device with memory, there is no transmission to detect. But since the box will have to be recovered by the TLA that planted it, they have to locate it where it can be recovered quickly. That'll make it easier to find.

So if Driving Citizens

[Phoenix666]

have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by the police, do police therefore have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by citizens? Sounds like a great argument. Think I'll run out, buy a bunch of these trackers, and stick them to the undercarriages of cop cars and then set up a web site that reports the position of every cop car in the city at all times in case you, um, need to call the cops.

Either that must be the case, or cops must get a warrant to do this.

If neither is the case, then the only option left to Americans is to fire every single person in every level of government with extreme prejudice, convene a constitutional convention, and start all over again from scratch.

Re:So if Driving Citizens

[Uberbah]

Some newspapers actually did that once, except it involved searching trash instead of GPS tracking:

RUBBISH!
Portland's top brass said it was OK to swipe your garbage--so we grabbed theirs.

Back in March, the police swiped the trash of fellow officer Gina Hoesly. They didn't ask permission. They didn't ask for a search warrant. They just grabbed it. Their sordid haul, which included a bloody tampon, became the basis for drug charges against her (see "Gross Violation," below).

The news left a lot of Portlanders--including us--scratching our heads. Aren't there rules about this sort of thing? Aren't citizens protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

The Multnomah County District Attorney's Office doesn't think so. Prosecutor Mark McDonnell says that once you set your garbage out on the curb, it becomes public property.

...

After much debate, we resolved to turn the tables on three of our esteemed public officials. We embarked on an unauthorized sightseeing tour of their garbage, to make a point about how invasive a "garbage pull" really is--and to highlight the government's ongoing erosion of people's privacy.

We chose District Attorney Mike Schrunk because his office is the most vocal defender of the proposition that your garbage is up for grabs. We chose Police Chief Mark Kroeker because he runs the bureau. And we chose Mayor Vera Katz because, as police commissioner, she gives the chief his marching orders.

Each, in his or her own way, has endorsed the notion that you abandon your privacy when you set your trash out on the curb. So we figured they wouldn't mind too much if we took a peek at theirs.

Boy, were we wrong.

OK...

[Carik]

So I agree that warrantless tracking is a bad thing. Let's get that out of the way right at the beginning.

What baffles me in this case is that they COULD HAVE GOTTEN A WARRANT!

Look. The guy's cousin is on the run for drug charges, possibly involving drug smuggling. Before taking off, he sells his car to this guy, who waits a month or two, then drives to Mexico, stays a few days, and then drives back. I'm not saying any of that is damning, but it would certainly raise questions in my mind if I were the local DEA or police representative. And assuming they had any evidence at all on the guy who fled the country, that ought to be enough to get a warrant to do some minimally invasive tracking. (Yes, it's invasive. But there isn't a person staring through his window all night, there's not an actual person following him around all the time, and so on.)

So why not go ask for a warrant? For that matter, why not ask for a warrant to do more checking on this guy and his cousin? THAT'S what bothers me about the whole thing. They had no particular reason to be underhanded about any of it, but they chose to anyway.

Re:RTFA: not random surveillance by the government

[h4rr4r]

So guilt by association is ok now? When did we make that change?

If it is so fucking likely that a warrant would be granted, then maybe they should have gotten one. Sounds like not only are they violating the spirit of the law if not the letter, they sure are not doing their jobs.

Re:If it was me

[swb]

Does it come with a sticker that says "OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT PROPERTY"?

Assuming its just some random object, I don't see how they can hold you responsible for it.