After US v. Jones, FBI Turns Off 3,000 GPS Tracking Devices

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After US v. Jones, FBI Turns Off 3,000 GPS Tracking Devices

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 26, 2012 @02:30AM from the never-said-boo-about-the-human-implanted-chips dept.

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Wall Street Journal: "The Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a 'sea change' inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann. Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called 'Big Brother in the 21st Century' on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use. These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law. After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them."

189 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:33 · Score: 0

Seriously, WTF?
1. Re:3,000? by Bentov · 2012-02-26 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  I highly doubt is only 3000.
2. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't. They most likely have many more as you can still plant/use them with a warrant. The 3000 were just for ones without warrants.
3. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  3000 in a country of over 300 million people is a quite small number...
4. Re:3,000? by hardburlyboogerman · 2012-02-26 03:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Wouldn't it be a laugh if they found out that a lot of them had already been removed and stuck to the undercarrage of some random over the road semi?
  
  --
  Geek Hillbilly
5. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yup. One nuclear bomb and one kilo of anthrax spores are also small numbers.
6. Re:3,000? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-26 03:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Are you surprised that the number is high, or that the number is low?
  
  Personally, what I'd love to know is whether the FBI was being lazy with those 3,000(if we can do it with or without a court order, why go to the judge?) or whether they had 3,000 active bugs for investigations so flimsy that they couldn't find a judge to sign...
  
  The former wouldn't be good, but would be unsurprising and fairly banal. Doing paperwork when you don't have to is a fairly rare psychological disorder, after all. The latter, on the other hand, would be 'uncomfortably retro' behavior on the FBI's part, hearkening back to their historically loose adherence to petty matters of law and due process.
7. Re:3,000? by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-02-26 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Or stick it to the car of the agent who planted it.
8. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  I believe you meant OVER9000!!!
9. Re:3,000? by Patch86 · 2012-02-26 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  My guess is the former is the main reason. Why go to the court for something you don't need to go to the court for? Indeed, if you genuinely believed that there was no need to get court approval for something, it'd be positively irresponsible to keep going to court about it- a big waste of expensive court time.
  But then, there's no saying how many of the investigations are too flimsy to have stood up in court. That's exactly why we force law enforcement to get warrants for things- to weed out flimsy cases. Without that check in place, god knows how many shoddy cases were nodded through.
10. Re:3,000? by MightyMartian · 2012-02-26 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "The Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a 'sea change' inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.
  Or, Mr. Weissmann, you and the FBI could have just picked up a copy of the Constitution. Even a cursory reading of the 4th Amendment would have told the FBI that affixing a GPS device to someone's vehicle without even the nicety of having paid a judge a visit was eventually going to get the lot of you in a legal pickle and likely mean the Supreme Court would toss it out.
  I recommend the FBI get a copy of the Constitution. It's available at your local library, at many bookstores. Hell, there's got to be a hundred thousand websites out there that have the full text.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  The point is it should NEVER happen.
12. Re:3,000? by meerling · 2012-02-26 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And how many agents do they have? For that matter, do you really think we have THREE THOUSAND terrorists in our country? Or how about this, 3000 THAT WE KNOW ABOUT?
  
  Neither do I. So who the hell are they tracking, and why? That's a lot of law enforcement abuse of powers there, probably 3000 cases of it. Want to guess how many decades that would take to go through court if you tried to prosecute all of them? (Yeah, we have a lot of courts around the country, but those cases would be clustered in just a few.)
  
  3000 is a small percentage of the total populace, it however is not a small quantity of abuses of power.
13. Re:3,000? by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-26 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine that the ruling had gone the other way. Those three thousand would have multiplied to 30 thousand, then 300 thousand, then 3 million. That could have been claimed to be good for employment figures. Someone had to produce all the tracking devices, someone has to plant them, and someone has to track them. And, the nation would have been so much safer for the children!!!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
14. Re:3,000? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  How many of those were on ex-girlfriends vehicles?
  
  How many were stuck on rusty pickups at the local truckstop in the hopes it would magically be a bandito of some kind?
  (If you don't do the proper investigation and don't have probable cause, then anything you do is either fishing for clues or making wishes to the magic instant case fairy.)
15. Re:3,000? by Thing+1 · 2012-02-26 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  I recommend the FBI get a copy of the Constitution. It's available at your local library
  Hmm, isn't checking documents out of the library an action that leads to you ending up on a list of some sort? I agree; it's good to encourage our government agents to use library facilities.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
16. Re:3,000? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  There are even places that promote such things that will send you a copy for free if you are to stupid to google it.
17. Re:3,000? by hardburlyboogerman · 2012-02-26 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yea,another good one.LOL!
  
  --
  Geek Hillbilly
18. Re:3,000? by flyneye · 2012-02-26 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  2999, I stuck mine to the bottom of a carnival ride trailer long time back.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
19. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  A good number of those were probably cuckold FBI agents investigating the libidos of their ironically career widowed wives. What tangled webs we weave....
20. Re:3,000? by icebike · 2012-02-26 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  The point is it should NEVER happen.
  Actually the point is it should never happen WITHOUT a warrant.
  And clearly they haven't got enough for a warrant. Seeing as how it takes so little to get a warrant that they have no reluctance to ask for one to retrieve 500 worth of property. Apparently a crime on par with petty theft is enough to get you tracked.
  Since these were all illegal, why not force them to reveal to the tracked parties their tracking activities and ask for the devices back. They may face legal action, but so what? The supreme court didn't make new law, it just stated what was the law all along. Placing the trackers with out a warrant was always a crime.
  Either that or The FBI could seek a warrant for their continued use. Surely after tracking these suspects for how ever many weeks it took for the case to find its way through the courts they must have evidence of something that rises to the level of petty theft.
  Instead they get a second byte of the apple, by being allowed to peek in windows and perhaps trespass under the guise of retrieving government property. No bad deed goes unrewarded.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
21. Re:3,000? by flyneye · 2012-02-26 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  It may not be so much a question of the FBIs Literacy as the Supreme Courts (mis) interpretation and (skewed) analysis of the Constitution. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html has recent official propaganda from SCOTUS.
  I think a lot of your questions on the subject will get answered there.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
22. Re:3,000? by sjames · 2012-02-26 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  It would almost have to be the latter. Otherwise they would just go get the warrants now rather than turn them off. Or at most, they would get a warrant and turn them back on then rather than seeking permission to turn them on just long enough to retrieve them.
  There may be plenty of the former as well not counted amongst the 3000.
23. Re:3,000? by M.+Baranczak · 2012-02-26 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The 3000 were just for ones without warrants.
  Hard to tell, the article is light on details. That's one possible interpretation. Here's another: there were actually much more than 3000 warrant-less trackers out there. After they lost the case, the FBI tried to get warrants for all the existing trackers. Most of those requests were granted, like they usually are, and the 3000 are the ones where they were denied.
24. Re:3,000? by gl4ss · 2012-02-26 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  My guess is the former is the main reason. Why go to the court for something you don't need to go to the court for? Indeed, if you genuinely believed that there was no need to get court approval for something, it'd be positively irresponsible to keep going to court about it- a big waste of expensive court time.
  But then, there's no saying how many of the investigations are too flimsy to have stood up in court. That's exactly why we force law enforcement to get warrants for things- to weed out flimsy cases. Without that check in place, god knows how many shoddy cases were nodded through.
  if the 3000 cases weren't flimsy, they could easily get a warrant on them. that they'd need a "rollback" warrant on their own actions(to retrieve the devices..) directly implies that those 3000 cases wouldn't have gotten warrants for the surveillance.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
25. Re:3,000? by JustNilt · 2012-02-26 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For that matter, do you really think we have THREE THOUSAND terrorists in our country?
  Not to defend the warrant-less trackers but do you really think the FBI only monitors and investigates suspected terrorists? They also deal with any crime that happens on Federal lands, crimes that cross state lines such as kidnappings, murders, thefts, and much more. They aren't all there just to fuck with our freedoms, you know. Yes, some members of law enforcement are power hungry assholes. That's not all of them, however, and you do a dis-service to the good ones when you forget it or trivialize what they actually do.
  
  --
  You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
26. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  I've heard that suggestion... though I fear that'd get someone in more trouble than it's worth.
  I thought it would be best to call 911 and say you think you've discovered a bomb under your car while changing the oil. Then have a neighbor call all the local news stations. Let the circus unfold on the nightly news.
  The upshot is you havent tampered anything, and you'd have given this ugly practice a public black eye.
27. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  The chances are of those 3000 planted many of the vehicles have changed owners anyway. They are probably tracking lot's of genuinely innocent people.
28. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, one kilo of anthrax would have billions of spores in it.
29. Re:3,000? by hardburlyboogerman · 2012-02-26 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sent 3 of them on cross country trips already.Used Nitril gloves BTW
  
  --
  Geek Hillbilly
30. Re:3,000? by Ihmhi · 2012-02-26 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's rare that I'll, you know, defend the government and all... but the FBI's purview extends way beyond terrorists. They handle organized crime in general, for one. I mean, the South American gangs like MS13 alone could account for a large portion of those GPS trackers. That doesn't even consider all of the other crime that they handle (bank robbery, wire fraud, etc.)
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
31. Re:3,000? by Sulphur · 2012-02-26 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't. They most likely have many more as you can still plant/use them with a warrant. The 3000 were just for ones without warrants.
  the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.
  Don't you need a warrant for that?
32. Re:3,000? by BitterOak · 2012-02-26 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  After they lost the case, the FBI tried to get warrants for all the existing trackers. Most of those requests were granted, like they usually are, and the 3000 are the ones where they were denied.
  I don't think that would help them. If you read the opinion of the Court carefully, you'll see that in the case decided, there was a warrant issued, but the tracking device was installed one day after the warrant expired and was installed in a different state than that for which the warrant was supposed to apply. I don't think retroactive warrants could be issued, and since the majority in the case found it was the trespassing act of installing the device which triggered the Fourth Amendment problem, I don't think the issuing of a warrant after the fact of installation would help the government.
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
33. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Or to the back of an alligator...
34. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  I am not a lawyer but I watch people pretending on TV.
  Evidence gathered by illeagal means is inadmissable. Also any evidence gathered as a result of an illeagal search. It is call fruit of the posionous tree.
  So if the police break into my house and find letter to partner in crime, whos finger prints are at the crime scene the partner gets off.
  there are some exceptions like inevitable discovery.
35. Re:3,000? by sumdumass · 2012-02-26 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know if that would be a good idea here. Most the suspected bombs in my area are generally blown up as the way they diffuse them.
  I guess they have a way of blowing explosives up where it destroys the device before it can detonate. I'm afraid of I was to call something like this in, they would blow my car up and the insurance wouldn't cover it.
36. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  But it isn't going to immediately spread over the face of the country, so the damage of those billions of spores will be fairly small (out of the 300 million population).
37. Re:3,000? by budgenator · 2012-02-26 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  The governments definition of "terrorist" is much more expansive than what most of us would use in common language; 3 million is probably a good working number.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
38. Re:3,000? by budgenator · 2012-02-26 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know if that would be a good idea here. Most the suspected bombs in my area are generally blown up as the way they diffuse them.
  I guess they have a way of blowing explosives up where it destroys the device before it can detonate. I'm afraid of I was to call something like this in, they would blow my car up and the insurance wouldn't cover it.
  That's done in cases where its a small bomb that can be transported to a demolition range in a special bomb trailer. They placed a known charge on the suspected bomb and detonate it blowing both, the size of the bomb is calculated from the resulting explosion minus the detonating charge. They are very unlikely to blow your car in the driveway, especially because an FBI GPS was stuck to it, I'm sure the bomb squad has been well briefed on the devices.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
39. Re:3,000? by Fjandr · 2012-02-26 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of caveats to the exclusionary rule. If the police act in good faith, evidence acquired through technically illegal means will, in fact, be allowed as admissible.
40. Re:3,000? by Luckyo · 2012-02-26 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with "police state is after my freedom" is similar to "rapes are on a massive rise, kill the rapists!".
  In reality, vast majority of central police force in most western countries (such as FBI), including USA deal with fairly mundane policing tasks like dealing with major theft, drug rings, murderers and so on. Just like rapes have been on a massive decline for last 20 years or so across the western world.
  But press will bang the gongs about every single case that makes sales well. That is "oh god, world is full of rapists", "oh god, police are after your rights, your wife, your life!" and the favorite of all, "oh god, pedophiles/terrorists".
  Not because any of the above are a serious threat to our everyday life, but because these occurrences are actually so rare for most people, that they pack significant shock value. And shock value sells, unlike the far worse issues that actually do affect our everyday lives, like social injustice, corruption in legislative (rather then executive) branch on massive level when dealing with big corporations, widespread tax evasion by certain strata of society and so on. These are too mundane to sell, even though their impact is far greater then all of the "shock value" news put together for vast majority of people.
41. Re:3,000? by Provocateur · 2012-02-26 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the GPS have no warranties? Not even from the manufac--
  Oh, wait...
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
42. Re:3,000? by Alan+R+Light · 2012-02-26 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  No, warrants aren't required to weed out flimsy cases. Warrants are required to protect people from official abuse.
43. Re:3,000? by stiggle · 2012-02-26 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they'd need a warrant.
  It would be the same as tracking them as the GPS-carrying vehicle could be in an unusual location, like the disused fish packing plant down by the docks, and that resulted in a drug bust and arrest. If they got the GPS location without a warrant then they could have the case thrown out on the lack of the warrant for the GPS.
  So, in order to cover their ass, they get a temp warrant to enable the GPS to report its location so they can locate the vehicle and remote the tracker.
44. Re:3,000? by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-27 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you've been following Wired's blogs on the topic you'd know that the FBI has received cartoonishly anti-Islamic training and has gone full McCarthy on the US' Islamic population, down to infiltrating Islamic college groups and mosques. Most hilariously, one group of Muslims called the FBI on their own informant sent to infiltrate a mosque because they thought he could be a terrorist.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
45. Re:3,000? by Cyberllama · 2012-02-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  The point that was being made, I believe, is that the FBI have repeatedly claimed that they need these sorts of constitutionally-tenuous expansions (like the provisions of the Patriot Act) to their powers to get "terrorists", but that is clearly a farce. Once they have the power, they will use it for any and all of their purposes.
46. Re:3,000? by Shotgun · 2012-02-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  To quote Nancy Pelosi: "Are you serious?"
  Really, if our elected officials that are supposed to write the law can so openly and callousely blow off the document, why should the officials who are supposed to enforce them give a damn?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
47. Re:3,000? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  I would assert that it is the power hungry assholes who do their hard-working, good-intentioned, law-abiding coworkers the disservice. Not us.
Mine now! by ewanm89 · 2012-02-26 02:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe the feds should be more careful before giving out their toys!
1. Re:Mine now! by Apothem · 2012-02-26 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  I wish they gave me one, I totally would love to have a brand new GPS tracker to play with,
2. Re:Mine now! by Jessified · 2012-02-26 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No kidding. The fact that they are having trouble locating them is troubling...is that to say they don't even know basic information on the suspect, such as his address or common residence? A means of contacting him/her?
  I'm also wondering if you could get in trouble for taking the device. If someone intentionally places something in or on your car, to me that is akin to giving it to you. Just like if someone intentionally leaves a box on my doorstep I assume it's for me. Am I supposed to ask the owner of pamphlets permission before throwing them away?
3. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this will help:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System
4. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  They're having trouble locating some of them, which most likely means they're having trouble with the ones that aren't in the most likely places.
5. Re:Mine now! by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Maybe if they put a bounty on them, $50 dollars no questions asked, or $500 if it's still in working condition.
  
  Hmmm, maybe the working condition bounty should be higher, I know a lot of people that would think $450 they don't yet have is a small price for showing scum exactly what they think of them. Remember, not only is this an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, it is also a declaration of war by the instigator (personal war, not literal war), and an insinuation that you are a vile criminal. Let's just say people don't like being insulted like that and without a large cash mollification, your expensive tracking toy will quickly become random junk.
6. Re:Mine now! by jamstar7 · 2012-02-26 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  I'm wondering if they'd try to press charges if I found one of these on my truck and 'repurposed' it.
  
  What do I want it for? Don't ask...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
7. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back
  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/all/1
  "The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi’s apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device."
8. Re:Mine now! by Corwyn_123 · 2012-02-26 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this will help:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System
  Use of this also requires an Amateur Radio License from the FCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio
  Unfortunately it' a dying hobby, with all the cellphones out there, no one sees the need for radio communications anymore. One thing people have forgotten though, in a disaster situation, cellular communications either get bogged down, where you can't use it effectively, or it's completely out (depending on the disaster).
  Radio communications will always be there, and Amateur Radio operators become the first line in communications, since the primary thing they do is communicate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_emergency_communications
  But regardless, this all still requires an Amateur Radio license from the FCC, or from whatever appropriate government agency in your particular country of citizenship.
9. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  actually ham radio licenses being issued are on the up
10. Re:Mine now! by hjf · 2012-02-26 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  You only need a license for licensed bands. I'm sure you can do anything you want on CB.
  Also, dying hobby? Didn't we have a news article on slashdot just a few months ago saying there are more hams now than ever before?
  http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/ham_population.bmp
11. Re:Mine now! by Corwyn_123 · 2012-02-26 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see those statistics.
12. Re:Mine now! by X0563511 · 2012-02-26 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ask and you shall receive: Statistics.
  Recall that licenses expire after 10 years, so dead/uninterested people do fall out of the numbers with at most a 10 year latency.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
13. Re:Mine now! by DarkVader · 2012-02-26 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.ah0a.org/FCC/Graphs.html
14. Re:Mine now! by arisvega · 2012-02-26 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Radio communications will always be there
  Hoarding for The Apocalypse, aren't we? =P
  Nah I kid, I have my hoarding moments as well.
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
15. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Fortunately, a Tech license (the lowest level) is dead easy to get under current rules... funny story, a couple years back when I went to get my license (planning to colaborate with the neighbor's kids, putting a wireless camera on their RC plane), I only studied (one day) for the Technician class, since that's all I needed for what I aimed to do. I have no particular training for radio, just a BSEE, but I thought I might pass the General test, so I tried it. I passed that, too, so the examiners talked me into trying the Amateur Extra (highest level) test, and I even passed that one (barely, I think I missed several questions regarding tube circuits, as I'd only worked with solid-state electronics),
  Now if you don't have an EE degree or significant radio background, don't expect to be Extra-in-a-day like me, in fact I was very surprised to make it. But I think most anyone who reads /. has a sufficiently technically capable mindset, they should have no trouble getting their Tech ticket with a day or two study. If anyone's looking at APRS thinking it sounds cool, and holding back just because of the license requirement, I'd really recommend they go take the exam.
  73 DE AB9UL
16. Re:Mine now! by jamstar7 · 2012-02-26 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I read that. He gave it back. My question is, what would happen if they didn't get it back, if they never had a warrant to begin with?
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
17. Re:Mine now! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think they want to walk up to some one and ask "where is you car I need my GPS tracker, that we installed with out you knowing, back", They could also have lost them if the person had moved or if they never knew where they lived in the first place (which could be why they are tracking them in the first place)
18. Re:Mine now! by cfulmer · 2012-02-26 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they already did. When's the last time you checked under your bumper?
Turn it on again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:36 · Score: 0

...sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly...
If they are turned off, how do they know where are those devices and how can they turn them on?
1. Re:Turn it on again? by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-02-26 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  They are probably partially turned off, as in not returning location. They can probably still receive a cellular signal.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
2. Re:Turn it on again? by sudden.zero · 2012-02-26 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  GPS tracking devices are radio controlled. The device still has power when it is "off" only the Global Positioning transmitter is off and it can be turned back on at any point by sending a command to the device. In layman's terms it is kind of like a cellular "phone" which is technically a radio. Even when your ringer is off you can still receive calls you just can't hear them in which case they go to voice mail (by default), or any other number/service you have decided to reprogram the device to send to.
3. Re:Turn it on again? by milkmage · 2012-02-26 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  the same way they turned them off - REMOTE.
  you think they sent 3000 guys out to turn them off but forgot to collect them?
4. Re:Turn it on again? by mehrotra.akash · 2012-02-26 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just because a device is listening for a power off signal when on does not mean its listening for a power on signal when off
5. Re:Turn it on again? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It just struck me. This means they don't know either where the owner of that vehicle works or lives, otherwise they'd have an address to go to for retrieval purposes.
  
  WTH! Were they just sticking them on random cars in a McDonalds or something?
6. Re:Turn it on again? by icebike · 2012-02-26 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Its probably much simpler than you imagine.
  They probably never did turn them off, they simply stopped recording the incoming location data. I seriously doubt they would build in a function to stop tracking in a tracking device.
  These things don't have a gps transmitter. All they have is a cellular data radio that transmits long/lat info and an id number.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:Turn it on again? by sjames · 2012-02-26 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  Why not? They forgot that that they're a law enforcement agency rather than a band of vigilantes.
8. Re:Turn it on again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  But if it's off it's off, so what's your point retard? You think the FBI has a ton of GPSes running cronjobs to wake up in a week?
9. Re:Turn it on again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Then why would they ask for permission to temporarily turn them back on to locate them? UID over a million and you didn't RTFA...crazy day.
10. Re:Turn it on again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I imagine they *DO* have a mechanism to stop them transmitting: Why? Because that's how you ensure they don't get detected and removed from suspect's cars who you know are overly paranoid. Basically using visual surveillance in areas they're accessable (and most likely to have superior security) then signal the tracking device to activate when they're out on the road and least likely to have a mechnism to determine that they have radio signals emitting from the vehicle?
  I could of course be wrong, but that would be my take on it, kinda like the listening device Neal is always using in White Collar having an off switch so it can pass cursory swipe-downs for bugs.
11. Re:Turn it on again? by madhi19 · 2012-02-27 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  That because what would be the first reaction of anybody finding one! "Where the hell can I stick that? Cab, Bus my neighbours car...
12. Re:Turn it on again? by sudden.zero · 2012-03-01 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually you are incorrect. I work in a cellular and gps lab and all location devices are programmed with a "off switch" for the transmitter.
13. Re:Turn it on again? by icebike · 2012-03-01 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  ALL location devices?
  Your breadth of knowledge is astounding. I congratulate you sir.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
14. Re:Turn it on again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, I will grant you that. I may have been a little broad and slightly assuming but I am yet to see a device come through my lab that didn't have a way to shut the transmitter off.
A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Tell the FBI to write a nice letter to the owners of the vehicles asking if they would kindly return the black box attached under the right rear fender.
1. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Are you suggesting that federal agencies should somehow be required to admit to people that they have been illegally tracked? Such knowledge would only confuse and upset people. Far better to break the law one last time in order to covertly retrieve their hardware.
  Why do you hate America?
2. Re:A much better idea by fred911 · 2012-02-26 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutly! Additionally, all intelligence or evidence should be considered as fruit of the poison tree, including any information derived from the "poison". Therefore inadmissible in court.
  They should also be liable for civil rights damages.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
3. Re:A much better idea by jamstar7 · 2012-02-26 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I'm wondering about any convictions made on cases where there were warrantless GPS trackers installed. Wouldn't this give their attorneys grounds for immediate appeal/instant overturning the conviction?
  
  Of course, if these trackers never showed up in the evidence presented, I'd think it'd be awful hard to get the FBI to admit those trackers were in place. Getting the government to admit anything is a stone cold bitch.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
4. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  The judge is busting the FBI for illegal activity. The judge should require that the FBI notify everyone they tracked without a warrant so the class action lawsuit against the FBI can begin. If the FBI and indirectly Congress gets punished for passing and using unconstitutional laws by taking away from their budget then maybe the government would think twice before violating the constitution.
5. Re:A much better idea by nbauman · 2012-02-26 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's actually a good response.
  If the FBI showed up on my door and asked for their tracking device back, I'd say, "I don't know who you are, whether you own it, or whether you have a legal right to get it. Send me a letter giving me all the details and establishing that you own it, and I'll take it to a lawyer and do what he says."
  Suppose an hour later another bunch of guys showed up and said that they were the FBI and they wanted their tracking device back?
6. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Just offer the owners a free tuneup/oil change.
7. Re:A much better idea by arisvega · 2012-02-26 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that federal agencies should somehow be required to admit to people that they have been illegally tracked?
  Well, they admitted it to this guy, so why not?
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
8. Re:A much better idea by fluffy99 · 2012-02-26 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  That's actually a good response.
  If the FBI showed up on my door and asked for their tracking device back, I'd say, "I don't know who you are, whether you own it, or whether you have a legal right to get it. Send me a letter giving me all the details and establishing that you own it, and I'll take it to a lawyer and do what he says."
  Suppose an hour later another bunch of guys showed up and said that they were the FBI and they wanted their tracking device back?
  I doubt they'd ask. They'd just remove it when the vehicle was accessible. Perhaps parked in your driveway instead of the garage, or in the parking lot at your work. They certainly felt no compulsion to ask when the put it their, possibly trespassing when they did it.
9. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Gee, it's so funny, I forgot to laugh.
  https://www.eff.org/wp/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations
10. Re:A much better idea by wvmarle · 2012-02-26 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I'm wondering about any convictions made on cases where there were warrantless GPS trackers installed. Wouldn't this give their attorneys grounds for immediate appeal/instant overturning the conviction?
  If so, the defense lawyer did a poor job: if warrantless tracking data was part of the evidence he should have tackled that issue already.
  More likely such convicts don't know the tracking was used. They kept track of his whereabouts, and used that information to collect further evidence, without mentioning such tracking was done at all.
11. Re:A much better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Will not work. You will likely get threatened to be taken in on some trumped up charge. Everyone is illegal. I have committed victimless crimes in my home, and I'm sure the NSA's file on me contains this information based on web history and profiling. Not that the FBI would have access to this information... In any case, they can make up anything to make your life hell for years. Best not to fuck with them unless you're squeaky clean and loaded with cash and can afford a lawyer and to go through the BS legal system.
They Have Too Much Money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:39 · Score: 0

Clearly they have too much money if they have the time and manpower to track 3000 people.
1. Re:They Have Too Much Money by icebike · 2012-02-26 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly they have too much money if they have the time and manpower to track 3000 people.
  The only time and manpower involved was placing it on the car in the first place.
  From then its all done by computers.
  Most of these cases are probably drug related, and the investigating agent simple wants an alert if the car goes near some other known distribution point or any unusual places. This takes s almost zero manpower, which I suspect is why it was done in the first place
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:They Have Too Much Money by lightknight · 2012-02-26 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ask them, in oh so many words, when they think they will have completed their studies of crime and criminals, and will have solved the problem.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
Just an idea... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-26 02:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

What would happen if I happened to find such a device on my car and put a fine metallic mesh grounded to the chassis of the vehicle? They would have a serious problem, I guess...

--
Ezekiel 23:20
1. Re:Just an idea... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-26 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  If they are just on a fishing expedition, they'll probably assume that the device has failed/fallen off into a drainage ditch/whatever and call it a day.
  
  If they are actually interested in you, it is quite likely that the same fine upstanding men with guns who installed the device will, shall we say, 'schedule a service call' at whatever place and time seems most likely based on tracking data from before you discovered the device...
  
  If it has come to the point where you have a GPS bug on your car, they've probably already established the trivial details like your name, place of residence, record(if any), etc. They don't know exactly what you do every day, hence the bug; but unless you want to go into hardcore fugitive mode, checking up on the bug will just be a matter of motivation.
2. Re:Just an idea... by VortexCortex · 2012-02-26 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What would happen if I happened to find such a device on my car and put a fine metallic mesh grounded to the chassis of the vehicle? They would have a serious problem, I guess...
  What would happen if you didn't put a mesh around it to more securely affix it to the undercarriage and it came off on the highway, bounced into my windshield and caused a massive crash and multi-vehicle pile up?
  You would be ill advised to not secure such loose, or merely magnetically attached devices.
3. Re:Just an idea... by mpe · 2012-02-26 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  What would happen if I happened to find such a device on my car and put a fine metallic mesh grounded to the chassis of the vehicle? They would have a serious problem, I guess...
  
  A more obvious response would be to call the police and say that a suspicious device was attached to your car. Maybe even mention the "b" word.
4. Re:Just an idea... by Kennon · 2012-02-26 04:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Although true, I don't think calling the FBI "bitches" would be very constructive in this situation.
  
  --
  "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
5. Re:Just an idea... by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but in some places this will only convince the bombsquad to blow up your car to 'neutralize' the device, and then charge you all attendant costs. Especially in Boston. It's much cheaper to buy a new car, and either send that one to the scrapyard or donate it to charity. Please note, if you really think it's a bomb, donating it to charity is definitely and act of EVIL, and usually illegal as well. :)
6. Re:Just an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  What would happen if I happened to find such a device on my car and put a fine metallic mesh grounded to the chassis of the vehicle? They would have a serious problem, I guess...
  A more obvious response would be to call the police and say that a suspicious device was attached to your car. Maybe even mention the "b" word.
  Yeah, and when they dynamite your car in place to safe the unknown device, you'll have no legal recourse for compensation.
7. Re:Just an idea... by wvmarle · 2012-02-26 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  And have your car taken to a bomb disposal range and having it blown up? No thanks. I'd probably just remove it and toss it in the trash. Or if really sure what it is attach it to another vehicle or so. A train or a bus would be fun to mess with them.
8. Re:Just an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Put it on a police car.
9. Re:Just an idea... by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-27 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  These things are stuck on with huge neodymium magnets. The glue holding the magnet to the device is weaker than the magnetic attachment. The college kid who was being tracked still has the magnet stuck to his car's frame - it won't come off.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So how are they powered? by jc42 · 2012-02-26 02:46 · Score: 2

My first reaction to this was "Why wouldn't they just let them die off when their batteries run down?" In my experience, no GPS device small enough to be hidden in a car will run more than a few days without recharging the battery; most of them die in a matter of hours.
Then my second thought was "How are those gadgets powered?" Do they have a a humongous battery that will last weeks or months? Do they tap into the car's electrical system and not need a battery? If so, will the owner of the car find that the battery is run down when they don't drive it every day? What would be the legal import of the cops tapping into my car's battery and draining it? And, of course, when I took it into the shop and they found the electrical parasite, it would be removed, so this doesn't seem to be a very smart way to power a secret GPS gadget.
You could use a solar charger, but those are sorta hard to conceal.
Anyone know how these things are powered, and how long they can run without either draining the car's battery or dying because their own battery is dead?

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
1. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone know how these things are powered, and how long they can run without either draining the car's battery or dying because their own battery is dead?
  Yes.
2. Re:So how are they powered? by schnikies79 · 2012-02-26 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They are not that small. The battery pack is about a foot long.
  http://gizmodo.com/5658661/fbi-gets-caught-tracking-mans-car-wants-its-gps-device-back
  
  --
  Gone!
3. Re:So how are they powered? by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2012-02-26 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  they burn a teeeeny tiny amount of electricity in standby - think like a a wrist watch - it can use a tiny battery for years. They only start burning juice when their accelerometer kicks in when the car moves. It then asks where it is (GPS co-ordinates) phones those in and then every (x) seconds repeats that -
  Box to GPS: "Where Am I?"
  GPS to Box:(X.Y.)
  Box: [send X.Y. to bigbrother@fbi.gov]
  In between, it's "on" but only needs to transmit every (x) seconds, and even then, not for very long. Transmitting is the big energy burner. The really good ones can last over a month assuming the car is used about an hour every day. They go back to "sleep" mode after about 5 minutes of motionlessness.
  You can buy them yourself. The good one cost about $200 - 300 and you have to pay for access to the data to be sent to you and/or access to the mashup where the data is plotted on Google maps. Don't ask why I know about this stuff...
  
  --
  Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
4. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  It's not like a regular car GPS, though; there's no screen to power, and it would only need to get a GPS signal every once in a while, then go into standby. I'd be surprised if it couldn't run for months.
5. Re:So how are they powered? by sudden.zero · 2012-02-26 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  I think that you are thinking too "Mission Impossible" here where the agent rolls under the car at a stop light and puts a magnetized tracker on the underside of the car. These devices are actually hard wired into the vehicles battery system so that they charge when the vehicle is on. The FBI wouldn't waste time tracking someone with a battery powered device that would go dead and then they would have to find them again to plant a new device.
6. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  That article also says:
  
  The former agent, who asked not to be named, said the device was an older model of tracking equipment that had long ago been replaced by devices that don't require batteries. Batteries die and need to be replaced if surveillance is ongoing so newer devices are placed in the engine compartment and hardwired to the car's battery so they don't run out of juice
  
  To be honest, if they were illegally tracking you in the first place I don't think they'd worry about the juice it was sucking from the battery.
7. Re:So how are they powered? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-26 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  You can buy them yourself. The good one cost about $200 - 300 and you have to pay for access to the data to be sent to you and/or access to the mashup where the data is plotted on Google maps. Don't ask why I know about this stuff...
  Why do you know about this stuff?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:So how are they powered? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-26 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, if they were illegally tracking you in the first place I don't think they'd worry about the juice it was sucking from the battery.
  They wouldn't care because they are just nice, warmhearted, all-around good guys; but they probably would want to avoid doing things that make you more likely to go poking into your car trying to figure out why you needed to break out the jumper cables... That would raise the odds of you discovering the thing.
9. Re:So how are they powered? by Shoten · 2012-02-26 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I have to say that I have my doubts about this description, especially the comparison to the commercially-available versions. The device that was found by one guy under his car...apparently, an earlier model with its own power source...bears no resemblance at all to what you or I could easily acquire without going to a defense contractor-like organization. So it tends to follow that any device that would improve upon that design would only divert further from what could be bought for a few hundred dollars at Amazon. (Hmmm...I wonder...does the FBI have a Prime account?) And I'm absolutely sure that they couldn't just get by on a tiny battery to work for years; the battery pack on the early model was ENORMOUS.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
10. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's the real reason they where ordered to turn them off, they have an internal zero-point-module that could power the whole US for the next 5 Million Years, but the FBI didn't want to reveal how it works.
11. Re:So how are they powered? by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-26 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, I hope it's got a good voltage regulator and can cope with my 24V supply.
12. Re:So how are they powered? by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-26 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  How can they actually fit this without gaining access to the vehicle, or causing the body management ECU to report all kinds of faults because of the additional current drain?
  Furthermore, how do they do this without being *seen* doing it? Don't you guys have alarms and CCTV over there?
13. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about the ones the FBI uses, but we have them at work for fleet vehicles. They can be set to use 6v, 12v, 24v and 48v systems.
14. Re:So how are they powered? by PPH · 2012-02-26 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  How can they actually fit this without gaining access to the vehicle, or causing the body management ECU to report all kinds of faults because of the additional current drain?
  Its not difficult to find a running light circuit and clip into that. But sometimes they do clip into the wrong lead and antics ensue. I've heard of one being found where the device was tapped on to the low fuel sensor circuit of a vehicle, resulting in the low fuel warning light coming on whenever the GPS went into charge mode.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
15. Re:So how are they powered? by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-26 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  The ones we have require an external 24-to-12V regulator.
  I suspect that if they hook it up to a vehicle with 24V electrics when they expect it to be 12V (like, oh, certain Landrovers and some of the more "interesting" bodywork conversions) then they may find their GPS doesn't work so well any more.
16. Re:So how are they powered? by PPH · 2012-02-26 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in no way associated with this outfit or the brand of unit. So I can't say whether this one is any good. But for what its worth, here it is:
  http://www.eyespysupply.com/worldtracker-gprs-extreme-15-second-updates-gps-track15.html
  The rechargeable battery and charge management stuff is trivial to add.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
17. Re:So how are they powered? by tverbeek · 2012-02-26 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Don't you guys have alarms and CCTV over there?"
  We have car alarms, but they're mostly used by self-centered pricks who don't notice or care that the alarm is being set off by the wind or passing trucks every 5-50 minutes, so no one else pays attention to them either.
  We do have CCTV, but not so much as in Orwell's United Kingdom. There are actually entire city blocks which are not under any kind of surveillance at all!
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
18. Re:So how are they powered? by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-26 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the UK, where *entire cities* have no CCTV. The whole "eleventy billion CCTV cameras" was made up by a tabloid journalist, but I can't be bothered recounting the sad tale again. Suffice it to say that the second most violent city in the UK, with a population of about 2.5 million people in the whole conurbation, has about 200 CCTV cameras in total - mostly concentrated in the city centre and around the football grounds. Old Firm games are notorious for violence between rival fans.
  Most people who have a passing interest in keeping valuable property safe - particularly if they live somewhere remote - find CCTV a useful tool.
19. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Electronics hooking to a car's electrical systems have to expect a lot higher voltages and a lot of nasty spikes than the nominal battery voltage.
  One of them is called load dump. This happens when the battery terminal came loose and the alternator is running.
  Note: I worked with vehicle powered electronic and testing.
20. Re:So how are they powered? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Does this mean I can call the FBI for a jump when by battery goes dead?
21. Re:So how are they powered? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Lowjack services.
22. Re:So how are they powered? by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you mean they have flashlight batteries that never go dead?!?! I need like 20 of those things! :)
23. Re:So how are they powered? by Gordonjcp · 2012-02-26 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. I remember discovering that the earth cable had come loose in my old Volvo, when lots of very odd stuff was happening. Measuring the bus voltage when the headlights went really bright showed it had gone up to nearly 20V...
24. Re:So how are they powered? by jamstar7 · 2012-02-26 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You can buy them yourself. The good one cost about $200 - 300 and you have to pay for access to the data to be sent to you and/or access to the mashup where the data is plotted on Google maps. Don't ask why I know about this stuff...
  Why do you know about this stuff?
  Progressive offers to 'give' you one as well as a 'discount' on your insurance policy if you sign up for that 'service'. It plugs into your black box port. If you drive the legal speed limit, it might help reduce your insurance rates. In my case, it's more likely, 'Sir, you consistently drive at least 27 mph in a 25 zone, 68 in a 65 zone. We're doubling your premiums, and no, we won't pay for the damages done to your truck when that drunk teenaged kid ran that red light and T-boned you'.
  
  I'm thinking the only reason the police don't regularly get warrants for that data is, it's just not cost-effective to do so for a $50 speeding ticket.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
25. Re:So how are they powered? by mooingyak · 2012-02-26 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  You can buy them yourself. The good one cost about $200 - 300 and you have to pay for access to the data to be sent to you and/or access to the mashup where the data is plotted on Google maps. Don't ask why I know about this stuff...
  Why do you know about this stuff?
  That's my automatic reaction when someone tells me not to ask them something. I get an answer more often than not.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
26. Re:So how are they powered? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Not really. These things use less power than a smartphone, since they've got a strict subset of the components --CPU (probably lower power), GPS receiver, and WWAN modem. Additionally, if the car's just sitting, it'll be using even less power, because there will be less data to transmit, and it will probably check in with "I'm still here, but no motion" less often than it transmits when there's data to report.
  So it's not going to produce enough drain on your battery to be obvious that there's anything wrong; in any case where your car is sitting long enough to get a dead battery from it, it'll be long enough that it's not particularly odd to have a dead battery anyway.
27. Re:So how are they powered? by rcw-home · 2012-02-26 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Box to GPS: "Where Am I?"
  GPS to Box:(X.Y.)
  
  FYI, GPS does not work this way at all. Signals are unidirectional - they are *only* sent from the satellites to the receivers. The data stream sent is primarily a very, very accurate timestamp as well as ephemeris data (indicating the orbit of the satellite). Based on that information, distance to each satellite is calculated by the receiver via speed of light delays and triangulation (this is why 3 satellites are required for position, and 4 are required for altitude as well). This is the reason that GPS beacons have to communicate their position by some other means (usually to a network of land-based receivers) - the satellites only know their own position information, not the position of any receiver.
28. Re:So how are they powered? by diamondmagic · 2012-02-26 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  I read "GPS" to mean "GPS receiver". I think we know how the GPS works...
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
29. Re:So how are they powered? by rcw-home · 2012-02-26 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh. I read "box" as "the entirety of the tracking device".
30. Re:So how are they powered? by wvmarle · 2012-02-26 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  How often do you look under your car? Not often I'd guess. You can hide pretty large items there with the owner none the wiser. Only when the car breaks down and is taken to a garage (breakdowns don't happen much with modern cars) the underside of the car may be inspected. But usually not, if the fault doesn't require this.
31. Re:So how are they powered? by evilviper · 2012-02-27 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Don't ask why I know about this stuff...
  Why do you know about this stuff?
  Can't speak for the GP, but embedded GPS devices are becoming quite popular in rental and fleet services, and particularly popular for "sub-prime" car loans, and repomen. And the companies that make, maintain, and monitor these systems are hiring... and that's as much as I'll say.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The Fibby's can find them by kurt555gs · 2012-02-26 02:55 · Score: 1

On Craiglist! Ha!

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You may already be a winner! -- a template by Provocateur · 2012-02-26 03:02 · Score: 2

Sir:
Please return the other GPS that is attached in the vicinity of the right wheel well. (You may have to get down on the ground to access it.) This happens to be the property of the Federal Government. We have enclosed a box with an address so that you may drop it off within the next ten days at the nearest mailbox at your convenience. No questions will be asked. Thank you in afvance for your cooperation.
This will prevent us from coming to retrieve the aforementioned property in person. In the middle of the night, no less.
Your friendly neighborhood federal agent

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
1. Re:You may already be a winner! -- a template by PPH · 2012-02-26 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sir,
  I am more than happy to comply. I have enclosed the object I located stuck to the bottom of my truck in the vicinity of the right wheel well. Although I am no expert and I don't really know what this GPS object of which you speak looks like, here it is. On my ranch, we have different names for these, depending on whether they are dried or still soft.
  A cooperative citizen.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
For the full decision from the Supreme Court by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/scotusjones.pdf
1. Re:For the full decision from the Supreme Court by magarity · 2012-02-26 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For all the partisans out there, note this was a unanimous decision.
2. Re:For the full decision from the Supreme Court by Thing+1 · 2012-02-26 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  partisans
  Thank you, Sid Meier. Now whenever I see that word, I hear a specific set of (5 I think?) rifle shots. (Civ3.)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Cell phones obviate car GPS trackers ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:08 · Score: 0

Why track the car only when you can track the guy who is associated with the car,
and do so whether he is in the car or not ?
A cell phone works just fine for this, and the owner of the phone will even cooperate
with those doing the tracking by keeping the phone charged.
Cell phones are a dream come true for a police state ...
1. Re:Cell phones obviate car GPS trackers ... by elashish14 · 2012-02-26 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  That you, RMS?
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
2. Re:Cell phones obviate car GPS trackers ... by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · 2012-02-26 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  That was my thought. FBI: "Ok, you got us. We'll stop tracking you now." [closes screen with data from under-car gps tracker, open window with cell phone location data].
3. Re:Cell phones obviate car GPS trackers ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  A cell phone works just fine for this, and the owner of the phone will even cooperate with those doing the tracking by keeping the phone charged.
  Cell phones are a dream come true for a police state ...
  True, but many of the best (worst?) criminals probably don't use a single, consistent, paid-for-with-a-credit-card cell phone. And if they do, they leave that one at home while they run around committing their crimes with a fresh burner cell.
  
  In those cases, monitoring a cell phone would be entirely misleading. You would be tracking the cell. Not the person. (Granted. I know that they are/were only tracking a car, not a person, but if you live in the suburbs, it's probably harder to get a constantly rotating anonymous car than a similarly provisioned cell phone).
  
  It's possible that these 3,000 are folks that AT&T did not have active data on (which could have led to a warrant, and proper GPS tracking, etc.).
OK. What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 03:18 · Score: 0

What about tracking a cell phone owner without a search warrant?
1. Re:OK. What about cell phones? by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-27 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you still need a warrant for that in the US. Officially, as far as we know, anyways.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Rattling noise by backslashdot · 2012-02-26 03:22 · Score: 1

Ahh, no wonder the rattling sound from my wheel well suddenly disappeared.
Use professional bounty hunters to find them by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-02-26 03:45 · Score: 1

So the FBI should just post a bounty on the folks with these things. Those bounty hunters seems to be good at finding folks and their stuff.
Maybe the FBI should just call the tailed folks up, and ask them nicely to give the devices back? Although, that didn't work out too well with the CIA Iran drone.
How about a national "Search Your Own Car Day?" You might be surprised what you'd find under the back seat.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
There was no ruling on warrant requirement by Artefacto · 2012-02-26 03:48 · Score: 2

The summary is inaccurate when it says Jones required a warrant. The Court only found that the installation of the GPS device was a search because it involved a trespass. It did not say whether that search was unreasonable or, if it is, whether a search warrant or probable cause were required.
In fact, reading the opinions, it would appear that all the justices (except maybe Sottomayor) would allow GPS devices installed without a warrant for short term tracking.
Of course, the Justice department usually prefers err on the safe side.
1. Re:There was no ruling on warrant requirement by jamstar7 · 2012-02-26 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the Justice department usually prefers err on the safe side.
  Problem is, the Justice Department's definition of 'safe' is different from ours. Their definition is more along the lines of 'cover your ass' than 'don't bug decent law-abiding citizens'.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I was bummed, too... by ibsteve2u · 2012-02-26 03:50 · Score: 1

I was running my cell phone off their GPS' battery. /lie

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
What to do if you find one? by MountainLogic · 2012-02-26 03:57 · Score: 1

Sell it on ebay , of course
New Standard by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-26 04:36 · Score: 1

How about this for a new standard:

If an average citizen would be convicted of a crime (trespassing, harrassment, stalking, etc.) for doing it, the police need a warrant if they want to do it. I mean, for fuck's sake, they have special courts made specifically for the purposes of rubber-stamping warrants, now these fucking assholes feel like they should be able to spy on us without even having to go through the trouble of getting the bullshit warrant in the first place? What a Fucking Bunch of Idiots.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
1. Re:New Standard by meerling · 2012-02-26 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  
  Should I mention the time I ran into an actual FBI agent in a store getting 'print samples' from various laser and dot matrix printers?
  He was really upset when I pointed out that they don't have physical type like a typewriter, instead they are all electronic fonts that can be changed on the whim of the user or software.
  He got even more upset when I pointed out that all the inks and toners came from a handful of factories, and with refils, it might not even be the same one that was originally used.
  He was one very unhappy agent after that.
I recently set a system up by QA · 2012-02-26 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I recently set up an entire GPS platform for our fleet at work. Security was an issue so I purchased the platform and run it in house on a server I built. Currently have 200 assets, but the platform will handle 5000.
They are probably using a device similar to an Enfora modem. These are cellular only, and fairly basic, although they can be configured to reports certain parameters such as ignition on, motion detection, geofencing, etc.
At the other end of the scale you can have a dual band device like the i50B which is Iridium satellite and cellular. The satellite kicks in depending on threshold setting for cellular signal strength. Of course there are MANY similar devices that run on different satellite networks (Global sat etc).
Reporting can be from every 30 seconds to once per day.
The devices are hard wired and use very little juice. You would never notice them. Both the devices mentioned are slightly larger than a pack of smokes and need power and ground. For the best reception an antenna is required, but that is also very easy to hide. Installation would be less than 30 minutes.
Interestingly, jammers are becoming a real problem. You can purchase them online, they only block the GPS frequency, and plug in to your cigarette lighter. Think Taxi cab drivers and truckers.
Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by roeguard · 2012-02-26 05:11 · Score: 1

“[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbour’s ground, he must justify it by law.” Entick, supra, at 817.
Calls to mind the myriad stories we see here about some random hacker discovering vulnerabilities, reporting them, and then finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Even if you do no damage, you're still breaking the law.
1. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by NormalVisual · 2012-02-26 05:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Which then in turn raises a serious question - we've seen hackers prosecuted and jailed for their activities, but what kind of punishment can we expect for those responsible for the violation of Jones's Fourth Amendment rights? My money is on "none". The SCOTUS ruling doesn't mean anything at all without some kind of consequences for those responsible, as there's nothing to keep the guilty parties from willfully doing it again. And I'm not talking about some stupid fine or something that means nothing to the individual agents that made the decision to violate his civil rights. I'm talking about jail time for those who placed the devices, and their supervisors who signed off on it.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
2. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hell, even a permanent ban from law enforcement (and similiar fields, including PI, bounty hunting, skiptracing, etc.) would be enough for me. Or even better offer them the option, they can take the jail time and return to law enforcement (but as a 'rookie'), or they can skip the time but never work in LE again.
  Seems like that would be a good offer. The ones who were serious about the job and the duty would choose to do the time and return to the job and the slackers, chumps, and most of the bullies would choose the discharge because they're more concerned about themselves than their duty.
  Any other thoughts on this?
3. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by Gavagai80 · 2012-02-26 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  What keeps them from doing it again is the fact that their evidence isn't admissible in court when they do.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
4. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by NormalVisual · 2012-02-26 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  That still doesn't change the fact that they've broken the law and violated the public trust. Simply having the evidence excluded doesn't seem to be very much of a deterrent. Law enforcement really needs to have the fear of God instilled in them when they do crap like this.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
5. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Dude. You're a weirdo. Any of these people who have found bugs on their vehicles are welcome to take a case to civil court and seek damages. Also, any evidence in current cases is now inadmissible, and cases that are over can be take to appeal.
6. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by NormalVisual · 2012-02-26 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Any of these people who have found bugs on their vehicles are welcome to take a case to civil court and seek damages
  
  They're also welcome to find out about the concept of sovereign immunity once they try that and have their suit dismissed.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
7. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  "violated the public trust"?? LOL! You must think you still live in a country where the government GIVES A SHIT! The key aspect of the republic that has long since disappeared is that the 'power resides with the people'. If the power truly DID reside with the people then there would be penalties for criminal behavior while acting as a representative of said people. Since they do things out in the open with no fear of reprisal . . . . guess what, government officials are not concerned about things like 'public trust' anymore. The only reason they TRY to keep it under the covers at all is to extend out the time in which they have to perpetrate activities in which they can continue to amass personal wealth.
8. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  What keeps them from doing it again is the fact that their evidence isn't admissible in court when they do.
  There are so many ways around that.
  They put an illegal gps device on a car, and follow the owner as he rob a bank/smuggle drugs/whatever. And then they follow him around and arrest him as soon as he parks.
  They won't have to tell anyone about the gps device. They arrested the guy with the money/drugs - all they need. If the arrest seems incredibly improbable, well "we got this anonymous phonecall about this criminal". A tip - from their tracking operator - but "anonymously".
9. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by jerunamuck · 2012-02-28 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hear, Hear!
10. Re:Interesting quote from the SCOTUS ruling by jerunamuck · 2012-02-28 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yet another reason we need to repeal "sovereign immunity". Let them get Malpractice Insurance like the rest of us!
How to repurpose an FBI GPS tracking device? by kheldan · 2012-02-26 06:00 · Score: 1

I've collected a few hundred of these now-deactivated GPS tracking devices, and I'm coming here to Slashdot to ask: How can I repurpose them into something useful? Can I install some flavor of Linux on them? Perhaps turn them into nodes of a mobile mesh network? Mobile hotspots for on-the-road internet access? How about a location-specific personal music player, that based on where you're driving, will download appropriate music and feed it to your car stereo's built-in Bluetooth receiver?

Any and all ideas you might have will be appreciated!

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
CB is actually a licensed service... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2012-02-26 07:09 · Score: 2

It is subject to the terms of Part 95 of the FCC rules. You don't need an individual operator or station license (as you do for amateur radio), but there ARE legal limitations on what you can do over a CB.
One of the limitations is exactly what types of signals can be emitted over the CB channels. You are limited to AM or SSB voice. Digital data packets (such as from an APRS system) are NOT permitted.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
1. Re:CB is actually a licensed service... by hjf · 2012-02-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why... bandwidth issues? CW operation? How about PSK31, since it isn't as agressive (harmonic-wise) as CW operation?
2. Re:CB is actually a licensed service... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Nor are 1kw linear amplifiers permitted...
  But there's no shortage of those on CB.
3. Re:CB is actually a licensed service... by adolf · 2012-02-26 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nor are 1kw linear amplifiers permitted...
  But there's no shortage of those on CB.
  I'm reminded of the time when I outfitted my computer room with incredibly cheap X10 kit, all built around the Firecracker damn-near-giveaway system that was on repeatedly posted on /. over a decade ago.
  One day I was sitting there doing nothing in particular, and I heard a voice, crackled and distorted and really very loud, over my stereo system. And then the lights started flashing on and off in seemingly random patterns.
  I thought I was hearing the voice of God, but then I heard a big Diesel truck rumble by, and knew that is was not God trying to prove his existence but just some asshole with a linear who had wondered far enough away from the highway that he needed directions.
  Fuck linears.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
Suppository. by bussdriver · 2012-02-26 07:09 · Score: 1

The git who decided to do this should get them.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:Suppository. by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-27 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  THIS
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They turned them off? Sure they did. by Nov8tr · 2012-02-26 07:16 · Score: 0

And if you believe they really turned the 3000 off, well I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

--
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
Police State by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 07:44 · Score: 0

do you really think we have THREE THOUSAND terrorists in our country?
No.
My god, people really are dumb. The word "terrorist" is simply used to cover for the fact that you live in a fucking police state. And the "police" are run by the government which is owned (both parties) by corporations. So, you're totally paw3d by the corporatocracy.
It's fucking pathetic the way people delude themselves. Wake up and smell fucking walmart, fer crissake.
A stupid question by biodata · 2012-02-26 09:13 · Score: 1

If a GPS is under a car how does it get line of sight to the satellites? Are these devices just security theatre to frighten people into conforming for fear of being tracked?

--
Korma: Good
1. Re:A stupid question by QA · 2012-02-26 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  They use antennas very similar to XM or Sirius radio. Work best if they can “see the sky”, however they can also be run under a fender panel and stuck on the inside (most are magnetic).
  I’ve experimented with a few. The really nice ones are from Germany, are large (donut sized) and NEVER drop reception if roof mounted, but obviously they are not designed to be hidden. Around $250.00 for those.
  Factoid: Did you know this stuff works primarily off email? The Lat / Lon data is fired to the provider which (in my case) is sent to my GPS server running the host. I then have 7 clients running on workstations plus two 55” big screens.
  None of this is horribly expensive. Say 5 grand for platform and web licenses, 350 per cellular Enfora, and 2 grand for the i50B’s, but those are 2011 tech and very sophisticated. Both are programmed via scripts, but the i50B has 3 ports, one for GPS, leaving 2 open. You can remotely disable ignition, hook up diagnostics, and much more.
They just dont get it by Stan92057 · 2012-02-26 10:35 · Score: 1

They just dont get it Quote"Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices"End Quote The guidlines have been and always be Get a stinkin Warrent.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
because packet systems don't share by YesIAmAScript · 2012-02-26 11:35 · Score: 1

CB operators are supposed to share the channels, packet systems are considered to be poor at sharing, at least adaptive sharing.
Although the primary reason for the prohibition is probably so you don't use for for things such as you are suggesting.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
re: Progressive box by King_TJ · 2012-02-26 14:42 · Score: 1

Seriously, is that *really* what the Progressive tracking box does? I got the idea it's not so much a GPS location tracker as it is a box that "phones home" to Progressive occasionally, with general data about your driving style (EG. g-forces logged when you brake or accelerate, and log of your speed you're traveling at).
Although I used to have Progressive, I opted not to take one of those boxes, so I never saw one first-hand. But from what I read, it attaches to the OBDII diagnostic port, usually found under your dashboard near the steering column. That port would typically be one you'd tap into to record vehicle stats such as your current speed (something you'd be able to get without using that port at all if you were running an internal GPS).
I could be wrong, but I doubt Progressive even has the interest in spending the time it would take to analyze data about which roads each customer traveled on, and how often they exceeded posted speed limits on each of them? It'd be a lot easier for them to simply know when and for how long you exceed a preset MPH value like 70MPH, and when your braking is sudden enough to exceed some threshold of deceleration. Count how often those events happen per month and if it's more than a certain allowed number, flag the customer for increased rates. (If such events stay at or near 0 consistently, offer them a small discount, to encourage continued use of the device.)
Makes no difference in the long run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 14:42 · Score: 0

Between license plate cameras and under-pavement sensors for the RFID's already in tires, pretty soon there will be total tracking of every car everywhere, without having to bother with GPS devices on the individual cars. It's already impossible around here to cross a toll bridge or enter an airport parking lot without getting your license plate photographed. There are also roadside plate cameras (google "ANPR") alongside many highways and we're heading towards having them everywhere.
Removing evidence is a CRIME by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 17:19 · Score: 0

By covertly removing one of these devices, FBI agents become guilty of 25 CFR 11.440; Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Here's the Google Search of the day: "use of deadly force to prevent tampering with evidence"
Black Market GPS? by jerunamuck · 2012-02-28 02:58 · Score: 1

With all the press these little beauties got it's unlikely they're still attached to the original vehicle. Hence the trouble retrieving them.
More likely, the "People of Interest" looked under their car and found it long ago. I'd love to hear some of the FBI accounts of where they found their trackers when not still attached to the original vehicle. A neighbor or wife's car is the most obvious but I'd like to think some were more creative. Interstate Bus, Police Car, Live Stock Hauler, Shipping Container,... As fun as those sound, it's most likely they were destroyed or hawked. Go check out your local seedy pawn shop, you might be able to get one cheap.