Reply With Quote
I think that the two party systems effect on our selection of the judiciary may be the worst part of all. They are all clearly partisan to the point of absurdity.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ng-flourishes/The Supreme Court is set to hear historic arguments Tuesday in what perhaps is the most important Fourth Amendment case in a decade — one weighing the collision of privacy, technology and the Cons ution.
The question before the justices asks: May the police secretly install a Global Positioning System device on a vehicle without a probable cause warrant issued by a judge in order to track a suspect’s every move?
I think that the two party systems effect on our selection of the judiciary may be the worst part of all. They are all clearly partisan to the point of absurdity.
I bet they already have drones flying around watching people in the states. Generals can't wait till they can order a fire on OWS.
As any regular reader on these forums know, I'm all for civil liberties. That said, I can see a justification for GPS trackers without warrants. The GPS itself doesn't cons ute a search, it just makes it easier to track suspects, which cops can do now via various methods such as tailing, stakeouts, etc etc. The GPS tracker/technology just makes those methods easier.
If it can be shown that cops need a warrant to tail, stakeout, etc, then they should need the same for the GPS tracker.
I don't like the provision whereby they could gather the cellphone records without a warrant, btw.
The police have the unfettered right to monitor your movements based on mere su ion, but may not monitor your calls whatsoever?
I know it sounds silly, but here's my reasoning:
It's not illegal, at the moment, for a police to trail you. You have (AFAIK) no inherent right to the privacy of your own movements, in a legal sense. The main counter to this would be that if a normal citizen tracked you, that would most likely be grounds for arrest (stalking).
Now, when it comes to cell-hone records, they are not a matter of public record. Everyone can see where you are on the street; not everyone can see who you're talking to. As well, I think who you call is more intimate knowledge; especially since they can use said cellphone records to also track your past movement.
Essentially, I'm fine with police using GPS in situations where it would replace following, where it could prevent chases, and other limited uses. Of course, it will probably be abused. However, I think it's less an invasion of privacy than digging through private records.
The distinction is sensible, but your observation that the door is opened to police harassment and wholesale surveillance measures also seems apt.
NOTHING, NOTHING!!! should be done without a warrant. That is the check to balance corruption. If you don't have enough evidence, then you're not doing your job. There are judges that stand by and approve warrants.
Why is everyone trading security for freedom? Maybe a new group of founding fathers can start another America after this one becomes a police state.
A bit hyperbolic. I agree that we should default to warrants in most cases; however, if you force police to get warrants for everything, there's a good chance that they'll just go around the system anyways. Especially in this instance, where they are already using the GPS devices, and there's no legal ruling on this yet. (For instance, I could throw a GPS on someone's car right now. I couldn't demand their cell phone records.)
"they'll just go around the system anyways. "
That would be illegal and victims would have some recourse. With warrants unrequired, no recourse.
Enormous powers are being given to the police, etc, and those powers will be abused, as always, but now the Human-Americans' will not be able to appeal to the law.
I don't have a problem with the GPS being warrantlessas long as strong probable cause and do ented history are in place for every useage. I only fear the tools of law enforcement when they are too easy for a crooked cop to abuse.
I presume no innocence of the police. Too many stories of crooked cops, and
omerta among cops and their supervisors is legendary. I also assume the internal investigations, "policing the police" to be feckless in nearly all cases.
That's true enough. I see more benefits to GPS tracking than I do most other violations of civil liberty. YMMV.
Convenience for the police isn't everything.
Agreed. But as with any civil liberty, we have to look at tradeoffs. In almost any case, I'll side with the civil liberty. In this case though, I think the tradeoff is worth it, due to the reasons I mentioned above.
Another factor that weighs on me is preventing high-speed chases, which can cause a good deal of loss of life/property. (I know that people could invert that argument and say, "Well terrorism can cause loss of life/property too so why don't you support X..." but in those cases I think the civil liberty being lost is too great a cost.)
At the Supreme Court: Is GPS tracking of suspects too Orwellian?
Big Brother is coming, and there’s no point trying to hide.
Government lawyers argued that there was no difference between the use of the GPS device and the use of earlier beeper technology that allowed agents to track a suspect shipment via a concealed radio transmitter.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the use of such a device did not violate Fourth Amendment protections because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public movement of a shipment from one place to another.
The appeals court in Jones's GPS case declined to apply the 1983 beeper precedent. The appeals court said GPS surveillance offered more than just an aid to ongoing physical surveillance. It empowered the government to follow Jones 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 28 days. It provided data that allowed agents to identify the totality of Jones’s movements as well as patterns within his day-to-day travels.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...All+Stories%29
Poor argument, really. If there was no difference, then why not just use the beeper method? There are obvious improvements in tech when using GPS... that's kinda the point of using it.Government lawyers argued that there was no difference between the use of the GPS device and the use of earlier beeper technology that allowed agents to track a suspect shipment via a concealed radio transmitter.
SCOTUS observers today said it looks like the warrantless GPS will be allowed. No doubt that other surveillance techniques will be argued under that umbrella.
I suppose PIs can use GPS trackers w/o limitation?
Of course, UCA already collects TBs of data on all of us, from cc/debit purchases, PDAs, etc.
I suppose all telcos do/will do the same:
Verizon Wireless publicly admits selling customers’ personal data
HOUSTON – Verizon Wireless is assuring customers that their privacy won’t be comprised after it became the first mobile phone company to publicly admit that it was selling some of its customers’ personal data to third parties.
The carrier stresses that all of the shared data is anonymous and can’t be traced back to individual consumers.
http://www.khou.com/home/Verizon-Wir...133043148.html
I think the techonology progresses so fast, and UCA has such power over Congress, and SCOTUS is so pro-ins ution/anti-citizen activist extremist that we're all pretty much ed and will be ed more. George Orwell was right, including "soma", since 10s of Ms of Human-Americans, from cradle to grave, are on psycho-active drugs.
Nice roundup of opinions here:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...clined-to.html
So if a suspect flees from police and goes into a house, should the police be required to acquire a warrant? If there's reliable intelligence that a drug dealer is destroying his inventory, should police have to go to a magistrate and wait for a warrant?
There's a reason exceptions have been carved into the warrant requirement. It may lead to abuses, but that's why courts have discretion to suppress evidence and keep law enforcement in check.
I think this is a good argument, though I disagree. To me, it comes down to whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to your general movement. Though it's not "privacy" in the same way that one has with their home, I think most Americans would feel that police should acquire a warrant before tracking them. The improved technology of tracking devices also weighs in favor of meeting the minimal warrant requirements, particularly when there are no exigent cir stances.
Again, if cops can't attach GPS to a vehicle, can PIs?
PIs aren't agents of the state, unless they're acting in conjunction with officers. They may do so in violation of state cons utions or law if a state's exclusionary rule includes private actors (like in Texas).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
