Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Warrants Needed for GPS Monitoring
gambit3 writes "The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the case of Washington, D.C. nightclub owner Antoine Jones, saying police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month."
It may not be time consuming, but I'm sure getting a warrant is a real pain in the ass when you don't have probable cause.
Cookies should require warrants.
As most cookies are not installed by Law Enforcement, you're not quite following the plot.
See, I as a private eye, could install a GPSr device on your car or cookies on your computer to serve me in my private investigations (or even my nefarious plot to take over the world) which has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment -- unless Law Enforcement tries to use any of the data I've gathered.
Your computer is only yours in illusion.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Fruit of the poisonous tree." The problem is that since police and prosecutors are hardly ever prosecuted for unreasonable search and seizure themselves, pretty much the only incentive for them to follow the Fourth Amendment is to see their evidence thrown out of court if it's illegally gathered. If they routinely went to jail for such violations, it might be a different story -- but they don't, and they never will, so this is what we're left with.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Cops under your system: That dirty SOB, I know he's guilty of (horrific crime.) It'll be worth going on unpaid suspension for a month just to beat a confession out of him.
Esp. since there will probably be some charitable giving to the cop during his discipline from other members of the force.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Those pesky checks and balances.
For the most part people sit and complain about the ruling they don't like, for the ruling they do like they mostly shrug and say, well yes of course.
The Supreme Court is generally disliked by both parties, The conservatives think the Court it too liberal, the Liberals think the court is too conservative. However it is mostly because the way the Court is structured it is outside the normal showboating politics, where a Judge who tends to lean one way will not get his job threatened for "Flip Flopping" or what is more generally called changing ones opinion based on facts.
The biggest problem people usually have is in their minds Legality = Morality while they are rather disjointed. Often they work hand and hand but not all ways. Because it is legal for you to do something it doesn't make it morally rite. Also if it is moral or immoral to do something it shouldn't be legal/illegal, based on moral alone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.