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

[v1_0]

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

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but making (and sending?) a "bomb" is not a legal activity. Therefore your second sentence, specifically "law obeying", would not be correct. Perhaps, "formerly" (prior to being tracked) law obeying?

 

[v1_0]

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.

Show me what in the bill of rights is abrogated..?

 

[aborgman]

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

Show me what in the bill of rights is abrogated..?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This is, without a doubt, an unreasonable search.

--
ab

 

[Huron Angler]

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

Show me what in the bill of rights is abrogated..?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

My vehicle is in my opinion MY PROPERTY and I have the right to be free of warrantless searches. I consider the WARRANTLESS electronic searching of the entire continent for the location of my vehicle a blatant violation of my rights. Probable cause is always a grey area but unless a judge authorizes the placement of a tracking device I believe I would win in court all day long.

Also the snippet about the guy's driveway being "public" property almost makes me want to move to Canada. What kind of judges are there in Wisconsin?

Apparently the judge in NY doesn't have his head up his a** at least.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/court-strikes-down-gps-tracking-without-warrant/?hp

Bottom line- unless explicitly granted, the government(state or federal) doesn't have the authority to do much of anything so this is a slippery slope of revisionism with regard to our individual rights.


I can't believe that people feel that this is not a problem. Grow a pair and stand up for your rights. They didn't come cheap...ask the founding fathers how easy it was to secure these rights.

 

[thefairlaneman]

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

The main thing that makes my blood boil about this is credibility of those who think they have a legal right to track you. Doesnt it seem sorta stupid that we have ways to track people in a very technical way BUT YET THEY DONT EVEN THINK of TRACKING THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL FOREIGN ALIENS THAT HAVE FLOODED OUR COUNTRY.. They need to figure out a way to track them BEFORE they figure out ways to track me...GEZ

 

[greggholmes]

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

Good for me i don't get cell signal with-in 4 miles of my house

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

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

The main thing that makes my blood boil about this is credibility of those who think they have a legal right to track you. Doesnt it seem sorta stupid that we have ways to track people in a very technical way BUT YET THEY DONT EVEN THINK of TRACKING THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL FOREIGN ALIENS THAT HAVE FLOODED OUR COUNTRY.. They need to figure out a way to track them BEFORE they figure out ways to track me...GEZ

Geronimo, Cochise and Sitting Bull thought the same as you, we all know how that went down.

 

[v1_0]

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

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This is, without a doubt, an unreasonable search.

--
ab

Ah, but this is NOT a search - so this doesn't apply. The police need a warrant to search INSIDE your house, but they can know *where* your house is without one.

In regards to cars, once again: "search" means look INSIDE of the car. For that, they need a warrant. For knowing "where" your car is, no warrant is needed.

This is true today without the GPS thing - a law enforcement officer can follow you, in a marked car or not, all day long. No warrant needed.

Of course, in reality they do need to be able to justify why they are following you. While they are doing that, they are not doing other things that their superiors may want done. This will be true with GPS or without it. It may take less time to look at the GPS logs, but it still takes time.

 

[FBPirate95]

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

The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.

Lao-tzu (604 BC - 531 BC), The Way of Lao-tzu

 

[aborgman]

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

Ah, but this is NOT a search - so this doesn't apply. The police need a warrant to search INSIDE your house, but they can know *where* your house is without one.

In regards to cars, once again: "search" means look INSIDE of the car. For that, they need a warrant. For knowing "where" your car is, no warrant is needed.

Arguable.

To attach something to my car is different than just knowing where my car is also.

The moment they attach an object to my car, or access an object I own inside my car - it becomes a search.

This is true today without the GPS thing - a law enforcement officer can follow you, in a marked car or not, all day long. No warrant needed.

Following me physically is different than attaching something to my vehicle.

It's the difference between riding in another car behind me, and hiding in my trunk.

Of course, in reality they do need to be able to justify why they are following you.

You don't know many cops, do you?

 

[CATransplant]

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

An interesting discussion. I hope it doesn't get so political that the thread gets locked.

There's one thing that hasn't been considered here, though. While the car is your personal property, you have to have it registered and licensed to operate it on public roadways. There's the rub.

You can own the vehicle, but until you pay the registration and license fees, you cannot use it, except on your own property.

The argument can, and will, be made that your use of the vehicle on the public roadways may be monitored, and that you have agreed to that by paying your registration and license fees.

As long as they are merely monitoring the location of your vehicle, the argument would go, no 4th or 5th amendment rights are being abrogated. That's how they figure this, and it's an argument that will probably be upheld through the courts.

No search is imposed. No examination of your papers, etc. is made.

 

[aborgman]

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

An interesting discussion. I hope it doesn't get so political that the thread gets locked.

There's one thing that hasn't been considered here, though. While the car is your personal property, you have to have it registered and licensed to operate it on public roadways. There's the rub.

You can own the vehicle, but until you pay the registration and license fees, you cannot use it, except on your own property.

The argument can, and will, be made that your use of the vehicle on the public roadways may be monitored, and that you have agreed to that by paying your registration and license fees.

As long as they are merely monitoring the location of your vehicle, the argument would go, no 4th or 5th amendment rights are being abrogated. That's how they figure this, and it's an argument that will probably be upheld through the courts.

No search is imposed. No examination of your papers, etc. is made.

This is where the difference between monitoring and activity comes in.

Cameras placed ever 50 feet, hooked to a massive supercomputer that uses photo recognition to see license plate numbers and logs it - completely legal.

Attaching a device to my car that tracks my position - unreasonable search.

 

[Huron Angler]

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

I agree with Aborgman on this due to the fact that GPS tracking devices did not exist when the Bill of Rights or the laws were written and the interpretation may need 21st century outlook. Hopefully we have intelligent Constitutionally-abiding judges that can navigate these treacherous legal waters skillfully. Not an easy nut to crack.

I personally believe that it is unreasonable to expect non-suspects(innocent, tax-paying civilians) to be tracked by technology that is millions of times more efficient than a cop driving around in a squad car. The danger here is that all of us will be tracked 100% of the time which would be outrageous and clearly a step toward a surveillance/police state.

Nothing more un-American than that regardless of philospohical or political views.

I'm also extremely worried that the feds will want to implant chips into my boat and hack into my Humminbird to find out where all my good fishing spots are and what depth I'm catching them

 

[BoatBuoy]

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

I agree with Aborgman on this due to the fact that GPS tracking devices did not exist when the Bill of Rights or the laws were written and the interpretation may need 21st century outlook. Hopefully we have intelligent Constitutionally-abiding judges that can navigate these treacherous legal waters skillfully. Not an easy nut to crack.

ooooww. There's a group that would scream "legistating from the bench".

 

[CATransplant]

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

I'm trying to figure out why on earth anyone would want to track most of us. I know I'm the best fisherman on the planet, so I guess they might want to know where I'm fishing. Right....

The logistics of tracking more than just a few vehicles is overwhelming. It can't be done, and there is no reason anyone would want to do that.

The question remains as to the legality of unwarranted GPS tracking, but fears that we will all be tracked seem completely paranoid to me. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is interested in where my car might be. Or yours.

I guess I don't get it.

 

[Huron Angler]

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

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is interested in where my car might be. Or yours.

I couldn't agree more CAT- and that is my point. If there were a valid reason that a car should be tracked then it wouldn't be an issue. The judge ruled that it is ok even though there is no valid reason. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it because a warrant would be required and it would only be done when needed according to a judge. I have no problem with that approach- it's worked for a long time reagarding search and siezure.

Also- I am not losing any sleep over this and I agree that the notion of a police state exudes paranoia. It's the principle of the matter that I am concerned with, not the actuality of it occurring.

 

[v1_0]

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

Arguable.

To attach something to my car is different than just knowing where my car is also.

The moment they attach an object to my car, or access an object I own inside my car - it becomes a search.

Here is the definition of search that I have found in the legal context: "to examine another's premises (including a vehicle) to look for evidence of criminal activity." (From law.com).

It is clear to me that attaching something to monitor where your car is - does not fall into this. It can be considered the same as automating a manual task (the manual task being having your car watched by someone and its location noted).

I have presented precidence for this in another post - there are places where police officers place a (chalk) mark on a tire to see if a car is moved within a certain time frame (1 hour parking limit, etc). They do give tickets based on this information.

I also am making a distinction between putting something INSIDE of your car - that is a different matter and involves 'entering' your property.

You don't know many cops, do you?

I've worked with a few when I was in the National Guard. My impression is that they were pretty much fit into the category of "people".

 

[aborgman]

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

I'm trying to figure out why on earth anyone would want to track most of us. I know I'm the best fisherman on the planet, so I guess they might want to know where I'm fishing. Right....

The logistics of tracking more than just a few vehicles is overwhelming. It can't be done, and there is no reason anyone would want to do that.

The logistics aren't nearly as overwhelming as you make them out to be. Someone like the NSA can handle this sort of thing easily. Much less difficult than the cell phone traffic monitoring they already do.

The question remains as to the legality of unwarranted GPS tracking, but fears that we will all be tracked seem completely paranoid to me. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is interested in where my car might be. Or yours.

I guess I don't get it.

Ever live in a small town? Ever have a cop not like you? Think cops can't misuse resources of this sort?


This:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/06/police_prying_into_stars_data/

is exactly how you can expect this sort of information being available would be used.

 

[aborgman]

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

Here is the definition of search that I have found in the legal context: "to examine another's premises (including a vehicle) to look for evidence of criminal activity." (From law.com).

It is clear to me that attaching something to monitor where your car is - does not fall into this. It can be considered the same as automating a manual task (the manual task being having your car watched by someone and its location noted).

I have presented precidence for this in another post - there are places where police officers place a (chalk) mark on a tire to see if a car is moved within a certain time frame (1 hour parking limit, etc). They do give tickets based on this information.

I also am making a distinction between putting something INSIDE of your car - that is a different matter and involves 'entering' your property.

I think "attaching" qualifies as entering. I also believe the findings of the courts in the cases involving car marking were unConstitutional.

I've worked with a few when I was in the National Guard. My impression is that they were pretty much fit into the category of "people".

Exactly... and that is why the idea that they have to have justification before following someone is so ludicrous.

 

[v1_0]

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

Ever live in a small town? Ever have a cop not like you? Think cops can't misuse resources of this sort?

Yes, no, qualified yes. A qualified yes because it is no different than today.

In the case of a cop not liking someone - I would think that having a truthful record of where you have been, automatically recorded, would be more to your liking than having a record that depended on the recording capability of the cop that dosn't like you.

It is far easier to modify a couple of pencil entries in a notebook than to modify a set of entries (one reading every 5 minutes, 1 minute, etc) in a computer system.

This:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/06/police_prying_into_stars_data/

is exactly how you can expect this sort of information being available would be used.

Uh, so now they can know where the star's nteenth cars are. Which they can know by following them anyway. And, you can also see that AUDITS are done, records are kept - so at some point questions will be asked.

More, each of the people that did this sort of thing had a reason. (Curiosity, it seems to be). They didn't randomly select a name out of a hat. I doubt some law enforcement officer in, say, New Mexico would select your GPS information - or even know that it exists (if it did).

I'm more worried about the non-law enforcement people looking at my personal information. But that's a different discussion.