Reply With Quote
Prediction: The government will lose if it goes beyond tracking those as outlined in the original Patriot Act.
Another one to watch for those who care...
Supreme Court To Weigh In On Warrantless GPS Tracking
"In a move with far-reaching privacy implications, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the government's authority to conduct prolonged GPS tracking of suspects in criminal cases without first obtaining a court warrant. The government has argued that it has the authority to conduct such searches; privacy advocates have argued that such tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court's decision in the case will be pivotal because lesser courts around the U.S. have appeared split on the issue in recent years, with some upholding warrantless GPS tracking and others rejecting it. Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit sided with the subject of the Supreme Court hearing, Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. man who was convicted in 2008 on charges of possessing and conspiring to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine, and rejected claims by the government that federal agents have the right to conduct around-the-clock warrantless GPS tracking of suspects."
Prediction: The government will lose if it goes beyond tracking those as outlined in the original Patriot Act.
I don't believe the original or updated Patriot Act addresses warrantless GPS tracking, AFAIK. Do you know otherwise?
I mean tracking those who fall under the warrantless actions they can take.
Who dat?
IOW, as long as the government claims he/she is Al Qaeda/Taliban, then they're good to go. Of course, if anyone ever called them on their designation, they'd just claim "State Secrets" so they'd never have to reveal the truth.
Remember that I said in the past it isn't the Patriot Act so much that bothers me as it is those who have access to the tools. People abuse the law to their advantage.
It's can happen with any profession that has authority over others. We see Police abuse regularly. It can and I bet it does happen anywhere that people have such tools that can be exercised over others.
Do we disband such laws, or would it be better to have very harsh punishments against those who abuse the laws?
Of course, we alerted this potential misuse of the tools, especially with the lack of proper oversight, as far back as the warrantless NSA wiretaps.
At that time you gave them the benefit of the doubt since "they might know things we don't know" (or some such claim).
What made you have a change of heart on the subject?
You misunderstand then. I have always been afraid the tools can be abused. That isn't good enough cause to say no to the act in my view though. Just to be cautious and watch for abuse.
Unfortunately, it looks like oversight is only being loosened up these days. Which is obviously troubling.
(skittles)
(beer)
"Just to be cautious and watch for abuse"
Nobody's policing the FBI. Like the CIA/NSA,they are powerful beyond common belief and beholden to no one, intimidating to meaninglessness any oversight, eg, by Congress. I'm sure they're va ming up this forum, and all forums for "terrorists" and other keywords like "FBI". Like transves e J Edgar Hoover, they're looking for the terrorist menace under every bed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
