The point of the story is that now you need a warrant to put in a GPS unit.
You say it like its a bad thing;-)
Not necessarily true, you can tap a phone with a device that transmits directly to the police via radio waves.
When the phone is first answered you don't know who picked it up either; in both cases the police are monitoring a technical device.
Law enforcement can only admit evidence that is within the scope of the warrant. Anything that is outside of the scope gets discarded. The helps prevent fishing expeditions by law enforcement. On a aside, what happens if I find one of these on my car? I think it would be funny to put it on another police car and let them track that. Another thought, if no warrant is required what stops citizens from GPS'ing police cars?
My point is just that self-incrimination is not really implicated here.
I'm not arguing that police shouldn't use this technology but whats really wrong with a warrant. If they have probable cause, they will get the warrant. Plus there are judges on standby all hours for emergency orders. Idk why it is such a hassle, probable cause is a really low bar to jump over.
I think what he meant is that if the machine were to crash or data become corrupted that there is no paper ballot. Atleast with a paper ballot if there is a question, you can go back and count the paper ballot, like in the 2000 election.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the story is that now you need a warrant to put in a GPS unit.
You say it like its a bad thing ;-)
Not necessarily true, you can tap a phone with a device that transmits directly to the police via radio waves.
When the phone is first answered you don't know who picked it up either; in both cases the police are monitoring a technical device.
Law enforcement can only admit evidence that is within the scope of the warrant. Anything that is outside of the scope gets discarded. The helps prevent fishing expeditions by law enforcement. On a aside, what happens if I find one of these on my car? I think it would be funny to put it on another police car and let them track that. Another thought, if no warrant is required what stops citizens from GPS'ing police cars?
My point is just that self-incrimination is not really implicated here.
I'm not arguing that police shouldn't use this technology but whats really wrong with a warrant. If they have probable cause, they will get the warrant. Plus there are judges on standby all hours for emergency orders. Idk why it is such a hassle, probable cause is a really low bar to jump over.
I think what he meant is that if the machine were to crash or data become corrupted that there is no paper ballot. Atleast with a paper ballot if there is a question, you can go back and count the paper ballot, like in the 2000 election.