Re: Big Brother is tracking you...

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-29-2010, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Across jurisdictional boundaries. For example, if I'm in colorado, and I drive to utah, the local law enforcement has to get permission to cross boundaries to follow me. With GPS, they dont have to, they can just monitor it from a computer and then coordinate their investigation later.

But thats really not the issue. I have friends that live in very questionable areas because its all they can afford. So if I drive there in my nice car and a cop sees me and gets suspicious about a nice car in the ghetto, why should he automatically have the right to follow me home and plant a GPS device on my car in hopes that I will eventually do something wrong, without any cause or expiration date? It's crap.

unlimited, free access surveillance of anyone the police suspect is a dangerous line to draw. At that point, what constitutes merit for surveillance? I get a parking ticket, does that mean they can track me and issue me tickets-by-GPS for speeding? Sounds a bit far fetched, but its a real possibility since most modern GPS units, even in cell phones, will give you a fairly accurate speed readout.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that they can come on to your property, in your driveway and plant a device on your car. Thats illegal trespass and most states require a warrant just to do that. Second, most states require a warrant to coduct technological surveillance. This overrides both of those, basically giving the police the freedom to track anyone regardless of whether or not they have probable cause.

The other half of the problem is that, by this ruling, you have no expectation of privacy associated with your laptop in airports, meaning that anyone can open up your laptop and browse through whatever is on it. Sure, in 99.9% of cases, they're not going to find anything incriminating. But what if you're a business executive with documents on your computer pertaining to your company's secrets (and not necessarily bad secrets, just confidential business information)? Some security guard at the airport getting paid 14 bucks an hour now has the right to just sit there and read it because he feels like it? Garbage.

The decision represents, at its core, a significant loss of privacy to the average person with no set limitation or boundary. The thought that "if you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldnt be scared" holds no water because law enforcement doesnt have to catch you anymore. They can now just track you UNTIL you do something wrong and then get you without even having to BE THERE. And nobody can say they dont do anything wrong ever.

Very good points.

The idea that they can follow me with technology doesn't bother me. It is no different then if the cops gets a hair up their ass and decides to follow me around in public.

What if a new technology came out that allowed somebody to track my movements by simply taking a picture of my car? A satellite could do image mapping and find out where I am without putting any device on my private property.

The thing I find disturbing, as you point out, is that they can implant/modify/peruse my private property.

Where should I expect privacy? Not while I am driving around town. Not while I am tooling down the interstate. Not even when I am in a public but privately held business. I don't care if I am followed in public. I am in public. But I do think that I should expect my private life, and my private property, to remain unmolested.

**snooggums** · 08-29-2010, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Where should I expect privacy? Not while I am driving around town. Not while I am tooling down the interstate. Not even when I am in a public but privately held business. I don't care if I am followed in public. I am in public. But I do think that I should expect my private life, and my private property, to remain unmolested.

You should expect privacy in those locations, the 4th amendment isn't limited to your home. Expecting not to be observed is different than privacy, and GPS isn't the same as observation.

**Ferris Bueller** · 08-29-2010, 02:21 AM

Thats pretty much my point EGG. If a police officer/federal agent/law enforcement officer is walking through my yard, no problem. If he comes to my door and wants to speak with me, no problem. But subversively planting a tracking device on my vehicle to track my movements while its parked in my driveway is, to me, akin to opening an unlocked window into my house and planting a listening device. Just because it CAN be done certainly doesnt mean it should be done.

Surveillance warrants are required for a reason, a big part of which is not only the expectation of privacy (which a warrant provides legal documentation to breach, but requires probable cause to obtain), but also the presumption of innocence. If we allow law enforcement to track our movements without cause, as I said previously, its only a matter of time before anyone and everyone crosses a legal boundary, no matter how minor. Functioning under the premise that its ok to track people based on the idea that they *might* do something wrong without any substantial proof to back it, thats guilty until proven innocent, which isnt how our country works.

**ScratchMonkey** · 08-30-2010, 04:49 AM

In another thread, cops want to have the right to video us but don't want us to video them. With this decision, can citizens legally lowjack police cars? How about other government vehicles?

**CallousDisregard** · 08-30-2010, 01:09 PM

I'm surprised nobody has seen the upside to this decision.
GPS transmitter detectors...can't be that expensive to build and we have a lot of paranoid people in this country, not to mention real criminals.
This could be a booming industry.

**Ferris Bueller** · 08-30-2010, 03:44 PM

And its also illegal in all 50 states callous.

**Morganan** · 08-31-2010, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

You should expect privacy in those locations, the 4th amendment isn't limited to your home. Expecting not to be observed is different than privacy, and GPS isn't the same as observation.

That's actually not true legally..

There are subjective expectations of privacy, and objective expectations of privacy. Subjective expectations which are what you are making, are generally not considered by the courts and law enforcement as private.

Believe it or not, the courts have consistently ruled the only public places where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly accessible places are public restrooms, private sectors of a jailhouse and phone booths. Then you can get into the whole "open fields vs. curtilage" debate. (so you know, the courts define curtilage as "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life". This is why when movie stars have outdoor weddings there are almost always helicopters overhead filming their "private ceremony", they have no right to privacy outdoors even at their own home, if they did, those news agencies reporting from those helicopters would be breaking the law. As an aside, a tent is usually considered a "home" for purposes of the 4th amendment believe it or not.

You are taking a subjective view of where one should have an expectation of privacy, where the courts always take an objective view.

The be all to end all is, unless you are taking a dump, forgot your cell and are using a phone booth, or are imprisoned and visiting family or your lawyer, you have zero expectation of privacy in any public area, or when you are more then 20 feet from your home. Agree with that or not, that is how current law reads.

**CallousDisregard** · 08-31-2010, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

And its also illegal in all 50 states callous.

Jammers are illegal but I have seen nothing about detectors, which is just a radio gadget tuned to the freq that the GPS uses, they have been around for a while but this decision brings more publicity to the subject.

**ScratchMonkey** · 08-31-2010, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

And its also illegal in all 50 states callous.

Wait. It's legal to plant a tracker on someone but illegal for them to detect it?

**Ferris Bueller** · 09-01-2010, 02:13 PM

Yep. It gets worse too. Jamming or removing a tracking/listening device incurs the charge of obstruction of justice/tampering with police property charges, both of which are felonies. Gotta love how that works.

**Jakaleel** · 09-01-2010, 02:29 PM

I seem to recall one case where a tracking device was found on a car by a mechanic. The device was returned to the police by the lawyer of the car owner.

If put there without a warrant and the installation damaged the car (such as drilling holes), one could sue the law enforcement agency for the repairs.

**snooggums** · 09-02-2010, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Morganan

That's actually not true legally.

Yes it is true legally when referring to privacy.

I have to consent for a cop to search my vehicle trunk without probable cause, that is due to an expectation of privacy.
I have to consent to a personal search of my body unless there is probable cause that I am a danger.
The police and staff at stores may not search my body without probable cause to search. They may ask me to leave but that is not the same issue.

Privacy is not the same thing as being observed. Anyone can look at me in any of those locations. A person may follow another person at any time under normal circumstances. Probable cause and restraining orders are exceptions to the rule that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (objects you do not present are considered private) even when in public locations. There is no right to expect obscurity, as in not being observed as a general rule.

**1er** · 09-02-2010, 11:02 AM

I would suggest disposing of any mobile devices, cars, pagers etc if you really care that they know your business.

It's an invasion of privacy, sure, and nobody likes it. The truth is though; that if you're not doing anything wrong, they probably won't waste their time / human resources. Like I first said, you can hide from them if you really need to.

**Bisclaveret** · 09-02-2010, 12:13 PM

The problem with that attitude, at least when it comes to America, 1er, is that it turns it on it's head to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you won't care if they DO waste their resources and your time."

Because with that attitude, they'l do whatever they damn please, and it should be okay if you're not a criminal, but the moment you try to raise privacy concerns, it flips to "well, what are you doing that you don't want them to see?"

**1er** · 09-02-2010, 01:52 PM

I empathise of course, you can't leave your house without being caught on CCTV in the UK unless you live out in the sticks somewhere. As far as I've noticed, it's hard to argue for or against growing observation by the government whilst retaining any substantial reasoning (for or against).

I don't want some moron in the civil service to be able to spy on me, no. But I do understand that it can be time-consuming to assertain warrants or affidavits when needing to deploy electronic surveillance. Perhaps they just want it to be easier. It should be faster, but not a case of 'do whatever the hell you like'.

Thread Tools

Display