| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LGSakers
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: US Court 'OKs' GPS Tracking On Cars |
 |
|
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
| Quote: |
| Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway � and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements. |
Pretty scary. Here's hoping it is pushed under the rug when it hits the Supreme Court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: US Court 'OKs' GPS Tracking On Cars |
|
|
| LGSakers wrote: |
Pretty scary. Here's hoping it is pushed under the rug when it hits the Supreme Court. |
I hope the opposite. I hope that a statement is made regarding just how unacceptable this kind of behaivor is.
How can one's car not be considered an extension of their persons or effects?
I'm not one for Doomsday Scenarios, but I could easily see how, if upheld, this ruling could lead to all cars coming from the manufacture preloaded with GPS tracking devices. It would after all make the country so much safer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: US Court 'OKs' GPS Tracking On Cars |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
How can one's car not be considered an extension of their persons or effects? |
I think you'd argue that the GPS simply tracks the car's location, which would be visible to everyone; thus leaving the driveway is a surrender of one's privacy rights.
I don't buy that argument, either. A car's location, when someone is driving it here, is an extension of their person. If you can't use a locating device on an individual without probable cause + judicial approval, you shouldn't be able to use it on their car.
As a side note, didn't this a part of how they finally got Marlo in the Wire? I remember how happy the detectives were when they discovered GPS technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LGSakers
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: US Court 'OKs' GPS Tracking On Cars |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| LGSakers wrote: |
Pretty scary. Here's hoping it is pushed under the rug when it hits the Supreme Court. |
I hope the opposite. |
Ah I just meant that in the sense of it getting the hell off the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why stop there? Why not cameras on every car to make sure you are not doing anything dangerous/illegal while in it? Is the argument much different for a camera than for GPS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is terrible.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
On another thread I sort of defended the use of CCTV on subways. This, however, IMO is totally out of line.
I will be disgusted if my fellow Americans allow this to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
On another thread I sort of defended the use of CCTV on subways. This, however, IMO is totally out of line.
I will be disgusted if my fellow Americans allow this to happen. |
By allowing it to happen on that other thread, you are making it easier to happen on this thread and everywhere else. Call it big brother, fascism, or surveillance society creep, but that is why it needs to be opposed in all its forms.
Slippery slope, anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
On another thread I sort of defended the use of CCTV on subways. This, however, IMO is totally out of line.
I will be disgusted if my fellow Americans allow this to happen. |
By allowing it to happen on that other thread, you are making it easier to happen on this thread and everywhere else. Call it big brother, fascism, or surveillance society creep, but that is why it needs to be opposed in all its forms.
Slippery slope, anyone? |
| Logical Fallacies wrote: |
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we�ll be doing something that we don�t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn�t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nothing new. Cars are not protected in privacy laws. Police are allowed to search vehicles with nothing more than "I faintly smell marijuana smoke." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . . ."
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Nothing new. Cars are not protected in privacy laws. Police are allowed to search vehicles with nothing more than "I faintly smell marijuana smoke." |
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in automobiles. That is, people have the right to be secure in their persons and effects in an automobile. But, the search of a car is also reasonable under certain circumstances. The GPS ruling suggests people surrender their privacy when they enter their car. I think that analysis is wrong, and its important because a 'GPS search' would be an unreasonable search, unlike when the police act on suspicion at a traffic stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laconic2
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Wonderful World of ESL
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This means that anyone that has an unsecured driveway has no expectation of privacy while those that can afford it and have a walled or fenced off driveway have a greater expectation of privacy.
The decision flies in the face of the 4th Amendment and hopefully will not be enforced in other Federal Circuits pending its review by the Supreme Court that should declare it unconstitutional for violating the basic rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laconic2 wrote: |
This means that anyone that has an unsecured driveway has no expectation of privacy while those that can afford it and have a walled or fenced off driveway have a greater expectation of privacy.
The decision flies in the face of the 4th Amendment and hopefully will not be enforced in other Federal Circuits pending its review by the Supreme Court that should declare it unconstitutional for violating the basic rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution. |
Good post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
