The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS

[DavidSupreme]

He's blindly obedient, that's all; "Sir, yes, sir! The government can do no wrong, sir!"

Grandpa h.

That is an immensely insulting thing to say, are you saying that I think that people cant do wrong? Either you are an idiot, or you are insulting me, or you just trying to get a response by poor wording.

You think car accidents cant happen? Same idiotic thing, please do not insult me, especially not passively.

*shivers*

You scare me, sir.

For wanting to live in a society where people trust eachother? Hoping for no or low crimerate? Peace and tranquility? Trust? Awful things I know, bur cant you see my point?

It's really cool that you are comfortable enough with yourself that you would allow the government to watch whatever you may be doing privately in your own bedroom.

300 million people, being really nice with the calculation here (low madeup estimate),say 80 million homes with average of 3 rooms in each home/house, we got 240 million Cameras, imagine a highend surveillance system switching between cameras to show 5 images per minute.. Cheezes man lets give up there because, well, you get it, right?

But I'm afraid the "right to privacy" isn't simply established to protect people from the embarrassment of what they may consider to be uncomfortable and private situations...

Indeed, so? you didn't answer my question, Whats the problem?
Once again, the only one I can see complaining for a logical cause would be Criminals, why would you care? Right?

I rather live in a society that is safe and I know I do not have to worry about X, if surveillance would help bringing that, fine with me, no logical reason to question it.. DO you have a Logical Reason to Question surveillance of the Soceities Population? Criminals, Rapist, Murderers?

[Muckraker]

Furthermore, I just did some research and found that the question of physical intrusion is irrelevant anyway. In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires officers to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone. Physical intrusion is not required. According to Justice Stewart, the fourth amendment "protects people, not places."

The difference between the gps and the wiretap, though, is that the gps can only obtain data that a tailing officer could obtain. The evidence acquired via wiretap is not attainable by surveilance methods that wouldn't require a wiretap. If, however, an undercover officer stands next to someone on the phone and listens to the one-sided conversation that would not require a warrant.

Therefore, the question isn't whether or not the police should have a right to trespass and plant a GPS tracking device on the bottom of your car. The question is whether or not the police should be able to plant a GPS tracking device on the bottom of your car without a warrant in any circumstance. I do not believe that the police should have such power.

So, yes, the need for the police to obtain a warrant before carrying out such searches would make the concept more palatable to me. It's not that I am entirely opposed to the use of tracking devices or wiretaps. I am merely unsettled by the fact that this new law in California sets a precedent which declares that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our driveways (which is, as I hope to have shown, not completely accurate), and which does not require the police to obtain a search warrant for what I consider to be a fairly intrusive search.

I agree. Even though the same data can be acquired without a warrant the physical act of anyone attaching anything to another person's car without their knowledge should not be legal. (Unless they have broken a law and an attachment - such as a boot - is part of the consequence.)

I hope California corrects the issue and at least requires a partial warrant in order to justify, and supply accountability for, the act.

[grandpa]

That is an immensely insulting thing to say, are you
saying that I think that people cant do wrong?
Either you are an idiot, or you are
insulting me, or you just trying to get a response
by poor wording.

You mention this like it couldn't be abused in any way, so what am I supposed to think?
You think the government should be able to track people whenever it wants, and for no particular reason. That is the very foundation of totalitarian thinking!
If it's not what you think, then what do you think? In other words, what about my interpretation of your views would be idiotic? In your ideal world it seems that everyone would be a potential mole, and every step would be subject to monitoring. And I can only guess what acts would require more and more government authentication.

Grandpa h.

[DavidSupreme]

You mention this like it couldn't be abused in any way, so what am I supposed to think?
You think the government should be able to track people whenever it wants, and for no particular reason. That is the very foundation of totalitarian thinking!

So why do you not want cars, phones and coconuts illegal? They can be abused and cause death.. Somewhat of a hypocrite I see.

If it's not what you think, then what do you think?

I am not a paranoid geezer, that is all.

In other words, what about my interpretation of your views would be idiotic?

You claimed I think X can not be Abused, this is a idiotic statement, thus, made by either an idiot or a person wanting to insult. Would you not agree if I pointed out that Grandpa think that he cant get killed by a car crossing the road, would be rather... Idiotic? Being that it is obvious it can happen...

In your ideal world it seems that everyone would be a potential mole, and every step would be subject to monitoring. And I can only guess what acts would require more and more government authentication.

No, I ridiculed the idea as it would be practically impossible to survey everyone, as well as pointless, but in areas or circumstances suitable for it, it should be available by default without some paranoid hippie claiming eveyrone is "after him".

[Compugasm]

As I said, the gps just monitors location of the vehicle. That's it.

Today, maybe that is so. But tomorrow they write a program analyze this data. What then?

With 300 million individuals in our Nation, the fact that they would even bother about me, a law abiding citizen, clearly means somethings up, so I would have no issue with it.

No, I ridiculed the idea as it would be practically impossible to survey everyone, as well as pointless.

That just sounds naive. How would you like it if the police constantly pulled you over to question you? You have nothing to hide right? Normally, your GPS reports that your car is in the driveway at 9pm, so this gives us probable cause to question you. So why were you driving at 2am? Quick trip to the "grocery store". Keep in mind, this line of questioning is simply due to the fact you were driving outside of your normal driving habits.

It isn't clear what your crime is. But a break from any established pattern will give them cause to investigate. But if it is truly pointless, and If you're innocent as proclaimed, then why must the data be collected at all?

It is only gathering public data.

I don't want someone simply downloading my daily activities into a Blackberry. Who is responsible for this data? But more importantly, who lives with it's abuse? In fact, public data would be even worse than private collection!! Anyone could simply download my profile from a website over a wi-fi hotspot? Oh jesus! They'd know when I'm not home, when I pick my kids up from school, etc... I understand this is information that could be found out with a human tail. But, why make it a few mouse clicks to obtain?

[ZNFYRH]

davidsupreme and Angry Citizen

I'm in agreement with both of you. Hell must be having a cold, cold day.

Yeah, GPS requires power. They can't just wire one up to your car. A reasonably sized battery would have to strapped to your car, and they would have to change it every day.

And so what if they want to track me? I don't do anything wrong.

I know some people hate when a stance like that is taken, but seriously, if they are tracking you, it's because they are suspicious of you. If you are doing something that raises Federal suspicion, I don't mind them keeping an eye on you.

Muckraker

Bravo. You hit the nail on the head, but I'm going to elaborate for those that don't make the leap.

They could sit in a parked car down the road and "track" your car by watching it. What's the difference between watching your car and following your car, and sticking a GPS device to it?

Abso-freaking-lutely nothing.

[NoJingoLingo]

davidsupreme and Angry Citizen

I'm in agreement with both of you. Hell must be having a cold, cold day.

Yeah, GPS requires power. They can't just wire one up to your car. A reasonably sized battery would have to strapped to your car, and they would have to change it every day.

And so what if they want to track me? I don't do anything wrong.

I know some people hate when a stance like that is taken, but seriously, if they are tracking you, it's because they are suspicious of you. If you are doing something that raises Federal suspicion, I don't mind them keeping an eye on you.

Muckraker

Bravo. You hit the nail on the head, but I'm going to elaborate for those that don't make the leap.

They could sit in a parked car down the road and "track" your car by watching it. What's the difference between watching your car and following your car, and sticking a GPS device to it?

Abso-freaking-lutely nothing.

The difference is stepping onto my property with the intent to violate my privacy and then actually altering my property, all without my permission or a warrant. How about that?

[ZNFYRH]

NoJingoLingo

How are they violating your property? Do you have a sidewalk in front of your home? Or a driveway? In most towns in the U.S., your sidewalk is considered your property. You are responsible for it's upkeep and cleanliness. Case in point, if you don't de-ice your sidewalk or shovel snow off, and someone slips and falls on your sidewalk or when crossing your driveway, your homeowner's insurance foots the bill.

If someone is walking on your sidewalk, it is creating wear and tear. Sure it talks years and years for it to show, but it does show. Are you going to chase down everyone who walks on your sidewalk or driveway for violating your privacy?

As far as altering your property, if there were some magical uber-battery for this GPS unit, how are they altering your property by installing it under your car? If they take it away, is your car not in the condition it was before?

And permission or warrant? Do they need a warrant to follow you?

What you are confusing are the morality of the act with the legality of the act.

I find it immoral because it is lazy. Pure and simple. They could follow you just as easily, but the GPS "follows you" for them. It saves manpower and money.

But is it illegal? Not at all.

[NoJingoLingo]

NoJingoLingo

How are they violating your property? Do you have a sidewalk in front of your home? Or a driveway? In most towns in the U.S., your sidewalk is considered your property. You are responsible for it's upkeep and cleanliness. Case in point, if you don't de-ice your sidewalk or shovel snow off, and someone slips and falls on your sidewalk or when crossing your driveway, your homeowner's insurance foots the bill.

If someone is walking on your sidewalk, it is creating wear and tear. Sure it talks years and years for it to show, but it does show. Are you going to chase down everyone who walks on your sidewalk or driveway for violating your privacy?

As far as altering your property, if there were some magical uber-battery for this GPS unit, how are they altering your property by installing it under your car? If they take it away, is your car not in the condition it was before?

And permission or warrant? Do they need a warrant to follow you?

What you are confusing are the morality of the act with the legality of the act.

I find it immoral because it is lazy. Pure and simple. They could follow you just as easily, but the GPS "follows you" for them. It saves manpower and money.

But is it illegal? Not at all.

That is a pathetic, sophomoric and specious attempt at an argument. If you don't understand the principles of individual freedom and liberty nor their application in our Constitution then you need to be educated. Once educated, if you still promote the same ignorance then, I can't help you.

[grandpa]

That is a pathetic, sophomoric and specious attempt at an argument. If you don't understand the principles of individual freedom and liberty nor their application in our Constitution then you need to be educated.

Honestly, I thought these concerns were generally understood and respected. Unfortunately, though, there's a constantly shrinking list of those I'd include as "educated".

Grandpa h.

[ZNFYRH]

NoJingoLingo

You're not educating. You are attacking me and my understanding of something. How you understand it and how I understand it is different. This is a discussion and debate forum, is it not?

Being "educated" means that we both have access to the same facts, which we do.

Your attack of me personally is equally pathetic because instead of discussing how you came to your understanding and interpretation of the same facts, you make an ad hominem argument.

What is it you think I don't understand?

[grandpa]

NoJingoLingo You're not educating.
You are attacking me and my understanding of something.

He's attacking your lack of understanding. And being educated means more than "having access to the same facts." It means being able to grasp those facts, which I don't think you have done. The fact is, governments throughout history have abused people. Given our own history, there's no reason to think our government is too good for that.

Grandpa h.