1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rocket River, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,325
    Likes Received:
    33,046
    The invasion of privacy is growing day by day.

    The taking our pictures are Red lights.
    They now want to TAG our vehicles with GPS [I cannot wait until these are mandatory in all vehicles. .. er. . .excuse me .. they become part of the standard package . ..for you safety of course and the cops are giving the info to access it at all times]

    What's next. There are alot of things that are legal but invasive. When we make them so efficient that the ease of use makes NOT USING them seem wrong.

    When you was recording crappy versions of songs off the radio . . no one cared
    you got such inferior quality.
    but when you could get CD Quality on MP3's . , , it became an issue.

    A cop following someone around in a car is one thing
    A cop tagging a GPS on you and picking up the report the next morning is another.

    Rocket River
     
  2. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,170
    Likes Received:
    48,345
    That's a pretty bad rationale. Our system is based on the idea of innocent until proven guilty so anytime the police investigate someone they don't know ahead of time that they have done anything wrong just have a suspicion. Just allowing police open ended surveillance can lead to a lot of abuses.

    In regard to this situation I think the ease of doing something like this means that it could very well lead to abuse if police don't need to justify doing so ahead of time.

    Also taking this issue further than just the police if placing a tracking device on someone's car is not an invasion of privacy what is to stop individual citizens from doing so? I think due to how much this increases the ability to track people without their consent a line should be drawn regarding the use of these things.
     
  3. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,325
    Likes Received:
    33,046

    Excellent point. These GPS are not cost prohibitive

    Rocket River
     
  4. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,072
    Likes Received:
    15,251
    In the same line of thinking, though, when a cop follows someone, it's surveillance. When a private citizen follows someone, it's stalking.
     
  5. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    i assume you made this comment because the roberts court has 4 conservative, maybe 5, members. you forget that the 9th circuit court (that handed down this ruling) is perhaps the most "liberal" in the country.

    didn't finish the thread yet, so pardon me if someone else mentioned this, but perhaps the most important aspect of this ruling is that the car in question was on private property, in the driveway, not on the street.

    there's a name for socialist totalitarians...it'll come to me in a minute....
     
  6. DonkeyMagic

    DonkeyMagic Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    21,604
    Likes Received:
    3,487

    i understand innocent until proven guilty, but you can't prove someone guilty if you aren't allowed to collect evidence and data. The cops were investigating this guy for durgs. They needed evidence to tie him to it so they used the locations he went to, which were pot farms presumably (i'm sure there was other evidence as well). That seems like a very reasonable approach and not "open ended" by any means. This was a very tactical use.


    i talked about the abuse aspect earlier.
     
  7. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    Why can't they get a warrant first?
     
  8. DonkeyMagic

    DonkeyMagic Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    21,604
    Likes Received:
    3,487

    Maybe that's what people have the biggest problem with. But sure, if they do have to go into private property to do it i'm ok with that...i just don't know how difficult of a process getting a warrant is so you'd hate for an investigation to be held up due to red tape of paperwork
     
  9. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    if it's deemed important, you can get a warrant in 15 minutes. There's always a presiding judge on duty.

    Doesn't seem like a lot of red tape to me.
     
  10. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,841
    I think the GPS would lower the value of my car, so I think this is a problem... especially if these new-fangled GPS trackers are the size of my vintage cell phone.
     
  11. ghettocheeze

    ghettocheeze Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    7,325
    Likes Received:
    9,134
    This a clear violation of privacy rights in my book. There is no way around it or any justification whatsoever. The arguments in favor of this are all completely flawed.

    The police "already use surveillance" excuse is flawed. While the police can follow someone and track them any number of ways but none of them involve violating the private property rights of the individual. Furthermore if you reason that tracking via GPS is just an efficient method of doing surveillance that is already legal then you are wrong. For example, a police officer can also go undercover and use a wire on his own body to record but unlike spy movies, he cannot place a wire anywhere inside the private property of the suspect to record. Phone wiretapping and an actual undercover officer are the only two forms of wires permitted in court. Therefore, extending this to right invade the private property of an individual has other consequences than just tracking suspects via GPS. What about planting a wire on private property?
     
  12. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,325
    Likes Received:
    33,046
    I guess you can get a GPS for a 'Fishing Expedition' . .. . to see if someone is guilty.

    I guess if I use my right to remain silent. . that is reason enough to get suspicious.

    Where were you last nite?
    Plead the 5th

    That's ok . . We will simply log into this GPS we planted on you last week

    Rocket River
     
  13. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,240
    [​IMG]
     
  14. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,825
    Likes Received:
    5,228
    2 words: aluminum foil
     
  15. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,688
    Likes Received:
    16,224
    OK - where is the clear dividing line and why there specifically?
     
  16. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,688
    Likes Received:
    16,224
    But the Constitution says nothing about how easy something is as a defining rationale whether it is legal or not. If, legally, we're OK with manual surveillance, there's nothing in terms of principle that makes this any different. It's just really a process of making a procedure more efficient.

    Here is where I think the key lies - is there something fundamentally different about the action because they planted a device on the car itself? That's the key Constitutional question here.
     
  17. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051
    Disturbing. The car itself is private property, it shouldn't matter how they accessed the car. What's the difference between putting a GPS on someone's car and putting a a camera in that person's front yard to watch them come and go? This is very dangerous. Like RR said, what's to stop the police from GPS'ing everyone's car in that case, maybe doing it through the license plate itself? They can monitor an entire city if they want.

    This is to me an extension of cell phone tracking except at least your cell phone is emitting a signal that is tracked and they're not physically tracking the cell phone itself. I think that's an important distinction.
     
  18. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    This = 1984. All for growing mar1juana. What a stupid use of resources and a very dangerous precedent.
     
  19. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,240
    4. Cops using a little robot to follow you.
    5. Cops using unmanned drones in the sky to follow you.
    6. Cops putting a mobile tracker on your car.
    7. Cops sneaking into the back seat of your car and following you.

    #1-3 are clearly legal and used all the time. No one seems to have a problem with it. #7 is clearly considered unacceptable/illegal. 4-6 all fall in the grayer area. What is the logic wherever something thinks the line should be? What is the Constitutional issue dividing 3 from 4? Or 4 from 5. Or 5 from 6. That's the key as far as the courts finding something unconstitutional.



    Doing any of those things amounts to an invasion of privacy, in my opinion.

    FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]

    '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.'

    Why do I have to discuss this with you? Honestly, a man of your intelligence can't see that those "gray areas" you mentioned don't amount to a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution? Seriously? You are confused?
     
  20. LongTimeFan

    LongTimeFan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Messages:
    7,757
    Likes Received:
    963
    I'm shocked at the number of people who think this is okay without getting a warrant. I thought this would be one of those topics everyone would be in agreement with.
     

Share This Page