Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

No court order required for GPS bugs! (More dumb judges.)

search

Rattle
Picture of Rattle
Rattle's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Rattle's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
  Music
Business
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
Games
Health and Wellness
Holidays
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
   Using MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
  Elections
Recreation
  Travel
Local Information
  SF Bay Area
   SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Nano Tech
  Physics
  Space
Society
  Economics
  Futurism
  International Relations
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
  Military
  Security
Sports
Technology
  Biotechnology
  Computers
   Computer Security
    Cryptography
   Cyber-Culture
   PC Hardware
   Computer Networking
   Macintosh
   Linux
   Software Development
    Open Source Development
    Perl Programming
    PHP Programming
   Spam
   Web Design
  Military Technology
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
No court order required for GPS bugs! (More dumb judges.)
Topic: Surveillance 5:58 pm EST, Jan 24, 2005

] When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome,
] N.Y., after a plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had
] no idea that a silent stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a
] secret GPS bug implanted without a court order by state
] police.
]
] A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police
] did not need court authorization when tracking Moran from
] afar. "Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a
] visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the
] public highways,
" U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote.
] "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts
] of his vehicle on a public roadway."

Comments from Decius:

Yowzer... The police "could have" visually observed the vehicle, but they didn't. They attached a tracking device to it. A tracking device it a wholly different animal and has wholly different privacy implications. The expense require to visually track an individual car's every movement, without being observed, is extremely high. An individual might have no expectation of privacy with regard to the specific location of his car at a specific time, but there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the specific location of his car at every time.

One might also inquire as to whether this tracking device stopped working the minute this individual pulled off of a public road and onto private property? Its doubtful.

This ruling implies that as one tracking device has no privacy implications, then presumably 1000 tracking devices have no privacy implications, as 1000*0=0. Moving from the idea that the police have every right to tail your car on a public road to the idea that the police can electronically track the location of every car at every time is a massive leap of logic that has little basis in common sense.

Furthermore, one would think that the process of attaching a tracking device would have some private property concerns. Is it legal for me to attach anything I want to your car? Can I put a audio recording device on your car? (Apparently so, according to one of the rulings in this article!)

Anothing article linked in here discusses a very very tenuous barrier that the courts established to prevent the FBI from wiretapping cars using their on-star systems. Apparently its only illegal if it might interfere with emergency road side services!

We're rapidly approaching a period of time when technologies like these will allow the police to monitor your every movement and record your daily conversations. If we will not properly apply the 4th amendment to this domain the results will be terrible.

No court order required for GPS bugs! (More dumb judges.)



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0