Re: Big Brother is tracking you...

**snooggums** · 09-02-2010, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by 1er

But I do understand that it can be time-consuming to assertain warrants or affidavits when needing to deploy electronic surveillance.

It's my understanding that someone who they are following with a GPS isn't an immediate threat, so they can take an hour to get a warrant signed instead of apprehending the person immediately. If it is immediate, follow them like they used to.

All of the excuses to get around a warrant outside of an immediate danger are hogwash.

**1er** · 09-03-2010, 04:45 PM

Maybe the real issue is the man, not the law?

**Morganan** · 09-05-2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

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.

While I agree the acts are distasteful, they are not infringing on your privacy in the current legal landscape. My point in my previous post was unless the police break into your garage or infringe upon the curtilage of your home, their actions do not violate ones right to privacy to place a tracking mechanism on the undercarriage of your vehicle or inside your bumper.

**snooggums** · 09-06-2010, 12:37 AM

The 9th circuit decision does not apply to the nation as a whole, and as noted earlier in the thread other districts have ruled that kind of action a violation. Since it has not been taken to the Supreme Court, it has not officially been determined which of the circuit's decisions are correct.

**Morganan** · 09-06-2010, 02:31 PM

Which brings me back to what I said earlier in the thread. A decision of this nature shouldn't be left in the courts hands, it's something congress should be addressing. I'm not a big fan of laws coming from the judicial process especially in the last 20-30 years with how politicized the process of appointing judges to federal benches have become and how little input the public has in the process.

**snooggums** · 09-06-2010, 04:55 PM

The courts are designed to be the ones who determine constitutionality issues.

There is no law allowing or disallowing the tracking, this court's decision didn't establish a law, it clarified existing rights (differently in different circuits but that is comparable to different states having different laws passed by their congresses). Some cops took an action that someone said violated their rights, and it went to court to be decided. If congress passed a law that legalized it, then it would still go to court to determine the constitutionality once someone could claim their rights were potentially violated.

Judges are less politicized than congress members, and I don't think you realize that the vast majority of court cases make sense and you only hear about the few that are considered controversial.

**Jakaleel** · 09-07-2010, 08:52 PM

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/

Court OKs Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking

A federal appeals court said Tuesday the government may obtain cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers without a probable cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
The decision (.pdf) by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, was not an outright Obama administration victory. Lower courts, the three-judge panel wrote, could demand the government show probable cause — the warrant standard — before requiring carriers to release such data to the feds.
The opinion, however, leaves the privacy issue in a legal limbo of sorts. The standard by which the government can access such records — which can be used in criminal prosecutions — is left to the whims of district court judges. Historical cell-site location information, which carriers usually retain for about 18 months, identifies the cell tower to which the customer was connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call.
The lower courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings on the topic and will continue to do so without appellate guidance or congressional action. The Philadelphia-based court was the first appeals court to address the issue.
The Obama administration argued a judge could force a carrier to produce cell-site data on a showing that the information was “relevant and material” to an investigation.

3rd Circuit (Philadelphia)
Delaware
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
U.S. Virgin Islands

"Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants!"

**redneck_fgf** · 09-09-2010, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

The 9th circuit decision does not apply to the nation as a whole, and as noted earlier in the thread other districts have ruled that kind of action a violation. Since it has not been taken to the Supreme Court, it has not officially been determined which of the circuit's decisions are correct.

What about Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer needs a warrant before searching a motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of that vehicle, unless at the time of the search the person being arrested is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or police officers have reason to believe that the evidence for the crime the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle

Wouldn't that kinda apply here????

**snooggums** · 09-09-2010, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by redneck_fgf

Wouldn't that kinda apply here????

I think it is an example of an expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle which I had noted earlier that should be a good ruling for guidance but the tracking device does not require access to the interior of the car so that case would not apply directly. As noted, the 9th circuit's decision to allow warrantless GPS contradicts some other circuits ruling so I expect the car search to be brought up as an example of the assumption of privacy if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

**redneck_fgf** · 09-09-2010, 10:02 PM

This is scarry..
http://zedomax.com/blog/2007/04/25/m...san-francisco/

RFID, no need for GPS

**snooggums** · 09-10-2010, 09:02 AM

Private company, bad policy. I wonder if they disclose that they use your personal information for advertising to you in public.

**redneck_fgf** · 09-10-2010, 12:19 PM

This idea is just as bad as when Wal-Mart planned to use RFID on all products, in that way when you checked out the could match you purchase to upcoming coupons..at least what they told us.

I know I will ruffle some feathers here but, I was dead set against the Patriot Act, there are so many loopholes, and large loopholes in in that allow unchecked searching of telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records it’s not funny.

There were so many sub-bills attached to this bill that did not need to re-reviewed and renewed that chip away at our rights..I will stop now before the soapbox comes out…

**Sirusblk** · 09-14-2010, 12:56 PM

I would agree. I knew it was a bad idea. It gave an open bill to take away our civil liberties and rights. Kinda makes it feel like the terrorists won in that regard.

**Flarfignuggen** · 09-16-2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by redneck_fgf

I know I will ruffle some feathers here but, I was dead set against the Patriot Act, there are so many loopholes, and large loopholes in in that allow unchecked searching of telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records it’s not funny.

There were so many sub-bills attached to this bill that did not need to re-reviewed and renewed that chip away at our rights..I will stop now before the soapbox comes out…

Honestly, if the government is releasing a bill that gives them any increase in power while simultaneously using an acronym like "USA PATRIOT", it should automatically throw out an absurdly large number of alarms and red flags.

**Sirusblk** · 09-17-2010, 04:04 AM

It should be illegal to use deceptive ameliaratives in the title of a bill and should be mandated that the bill's name is actually describing what it does.

Thread Tools

Display