And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

[waterinthefuel]

Big brother getting a little too big, don't you think?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story

"As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects."

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

That would be like them tailing you around the clock, they always were freely enabled to do that. What they cannot do without a court order is to install any kind of listening device in your vehicle.

 

[CN Spots]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Pretty soon, NASA's gonna be mailing us speeding tickets.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

I thought it was general knowledge that all cars built after 2007 had built-in GPS locator, tied to VIN number.

 

[wajajaja02]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

that's only the on-star models, and if they subscribe to the cell phone link that makes them work.

 

[wajajaja02]

Re: And I thought warrant less wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Re: And I thought warrant less wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

prosecutor could of just got a warrant to record the GPS tracing on his cell phone. which he probly carries every where, that would have been personal, and subject to constitutional rights.

 

[mphy98]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

I thought it was general knowledge that all cars built after 2007 had built-in GPS locator, tied to VIN number.

Wow, where did you get that info from? I know for a fact that no Chrysler or ford product has that in them, GM onstar is the only one that does. Lets not get paranoid here. As stated before, no difference than putting a 24 hr tail on you, just cheaper.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

The cell phone thing wouldn't work either - virtually all cell phones currently made, have a mode which allows the GPS function to become inoperative, as a default. Plus, the only time they turn on automatically, is when you make a 911 call. As soon as that call is terminated, the option to shut it off again pops up.

The good news is that someone, somewhere will invent a device that will detect these little tracking bugs. I would actually love to be one of the folks tracked. Since there is no reason for anyone to track me, I would take it personally if someone attached one of these little "dealies" to my car. If I had purchased the detector and discovered one, I'd probably sneak onto an airport somewhere and put it in the wheel well of a jet aircraft.

Let the morons track that!

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

If I had purchased the detector and discovered one, I'd probably sneak onto an airport somewhere and put it in the wheel well of a jet aircraft.

Let the morons track that!

Drive 'em nuts - put it on a UPS truck.

 

[FBPirate95]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Or on a police car......return the favor. LOL

 

[Maclin]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

My feeling is that no one should be able to attach anything to a car or other property without due process, I hope this goes higher and gets really visible.

 

[Splat]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Your cell phone doesn't need to have the GPS turned on to be tracked. Your location to within about 300 meters can be triangulated using the very cell towers it talks to. This is the same process the coast uses to located false mayday calls and downed vessels.

An even better on is..... Did you know there is code written into your cellphone firmware that can allow the mic to turned on remotely. While its sitting on your desk, or in your pocket it can be enabled as a listening device without you ever knowing it. How's that for making you paranoid?

Bill

 

[FBPirate95]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Your cell phone doesn't need to have the GPS turned on to be tracked. Your location to within about 300 meters can be triangulated using the very cell towers it talks to. This is the same process the coast uses to located false mayday calls and downed vessels.

An even better on is..... Did you know there is code written into your cellphone firmware that can allow the mic to turned on remotely. While its sitting on your desk, or in your pocket it can be enabled as a listening device without you ever knowing it. How's that for making you paranoid?

Bill

That's it!!!! The Aluminum Foil wallpaper goes up tonight!!!

 

[v1_0]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

My feeling is that no one should be able to attach anything to a car or other property without due process, I hope this goes higher and gets really visible.

Ahhh... we have a interesting debate here. The roads and most areas (other than your driveway, etc.) are public. It's the same thing as walking around the mall and being monitored by video cameras.

But that is "passive" monitoring (let's exclude infrared, as this isn't the norm for those cameras). GPS is "active" monitoring in that your car gives off a signal. Still, it is only providing a location - no other information such as what you are talking about. This would be the same as if a police officer was following you -they would know your location. I guess this is the argument that the courts accepted.

As to your cellphones, GPS is a convienience for the phone companies. From the very early days of cellphones your location could be determined - the cellphone sends signals out to the nearby cell towers saying "I'm here". (This is how the provider knows where to route your incoming calls). All the towers in the area pick up that signal and note its strength and rough direction - the computers in the cell tower talk to each other to determine which tower will best service your call. They also talk to each other to hand the in-progress calls off to one another as you move in and out of range, as well as tell your phone to shift frequencies (this way frequencies can be better utilized - so that two towers don't interfere).

One of the byproducts of this is that it is fairly easy to figure out where your phone *is* - certainly when you are talking on it, but also when it is turned on (those "I am here" signals it sends out). The only place this can't happen very exactly is when you are in range of only one cell tower....

 

[thefairlaneman]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

I dont carry a cell phone but if I found out that someone was tracking me I would do something most likely not legal about it. I would maybe let them "track" a "bomb." I would give them something to do other than worry about a law obeying CITIZEN like me.

 

[Maclin]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Someone physically attaching a device to your car, not legal I bet once it gets to the right level of judicial review. If the car already had something built in then that is like the cell phones with firmware that already have that capability and not anything like them attaching something that was not there originally. Still, with the cell phone or other built in cpability, it does not seem that it could be legal to just turn it on remotely unless it is known to you at the time you purchase or otherwise obtain or use the car or phone that the capabiltiy could be used at any time.

 

[CN Spots]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that they can use it "even if you're not a suspect". What the??? That just sounds like they're bored and nosey. If the guy's a sex offender and they think he's hanging around day cares then fine, get a warrant, track HIS CAR and use it against him in court later. I said HIS CAR because that's all that it tracks. More than one person might use it and I'm sure a defense attorney will bring that up. They would need to photograph the suspect in said car at the scene for it to hold up, at which point, they already know where he is and would have visual proof enough to hang him.

I'd just like to know what the excuse was for installing such a device on my truck if they didn't think I was doing anything wrong.

 

[v1_0]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that they can use it "even if you're not a suspect". What the??? That just sounds like they're bored and nosey.

I think there's a difference between the legal term "suspect" and the verb.. Seems to me you need some sort of reason to track someone (not legally, but 'internally'). Since this is in the law enforcement context, I'll set aside 'stalking' as a reason for this. So, the law enforcement officer thinks that someone may be up to something (now or later). I doubt they go out and follow a random person for no reason. So now they can access a list of GPS locations the car has been.

If they see something that warrants a closer look, then they can go through the legal process of getting a warrant and gathering information that can be used in court. Otherwise, they move on to the next person.

I don't see a big difference between having someone physically follow you and write down where you've been, or being followed by GPS. Both are done without your consent.

If you are not going somewhere that is suspicious - tracked either way - then why the issue? If you are, then either way you can be monitored doing it. No difference.

Now, if you are worried about 'false data' - someone fudging information - then this can be done either way as well. Matter of fact, seems more likely when you are being followed by a person...

I'd just like to know what the excuse was for installing such a device on my truck if they didn't think I was doing anything wrong.

Back to my original premise: they wouldn't install/active this unless they had a reason. It may not be a good reason, but it would be one nontheless.

 

[v1_0]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

Someone physically attaching a device to your car, not legal I bet once it gets to the right level of judicial review.

This would be a different issue. Is the car a 'private' location, in which case they would legally need permission (warrant)?

Or is the car a 'public' location since it is (usually) on public property, and you can 'see' into it.

Or is it a mix of the two? This seems closer to how the law operates. A cop can pull you over for speeding, broken taillights, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking a blunt, waving a gun, having a beer can, etc - all things externally visible. But they can't pull you over specifically to search your car even if they think you have something illegal. (They need 'probable cause').

In some places the police will 'mark' a car - chalk on the tire - to see if it has moved within whatever time limits have been placed (parking on the side of a street). This seems to be legal. It's not a far reach to say that placing a GPS device in a wheel well is 'marking' the car.

 

[Huron Angler]

Re: And I thought warrantless wiretaps were bad!!!!!!

I'm going to miss the bill of rights. It has served us well up until about now. I agree that this better get rejected by a superior court or this precedent will be cited to open up all sorts of abuses.