If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   DC Circuit declares DOJ use of GPS on suspect unconstitutional. Apparently unconcerned with TSA's use of PDA on non-suspects   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 70
    More: Asinine, d.c. circuit court, U.S. Court of Appeals, GPS, professional organizer, dissenting opinions, TSA, organized crimes, START treaty  
•       •       •

4010 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2010 at 10:48 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-23 10:21:45 AM
OMGWTFBBQ
 
2010-11-23 10:41:48 AM
They thought they could track the guy everywhere he goes without a warrant. The court, narrowly, said no.
 
JJR
2010-11-23 10:52:25 AM
WTFLOL
 
2010-11-23 10:52:44 AM
Now, if they can apply this to all police. . .

/that realtime license plate scanner stuff is some 1984 shiat
 
2010-11-23 10:54:01 AM
Dear Farkers obsessed with the TSA:

t3.gstatic.com
 
2010-11-23 10:54:08 AM
...M.O.U.S.E...

bmartinmd.com
 
2010-11-23 10:54:49 AM
Glad the appeals court upheld the ruling. It's not so great that a guilty guy gets to go free (for now) but I'd say maintaining civil liberties is more important than locking up one scumbag.
 
2010-11-23 10:56:37 AM
Agrees with the majority of the court here.

I'm not opposed to the use of GPS records if probable cause exists, as the information is out there and shouldn't be artificially ignored, but it shouldn't be used because a Police officer wants to. That just opens the door to way too much abuse.

Now if the suspect had say, set up an automatic link between his GPS and his twitter account, then it's considered public information and can be accessed without a warrant or any justification beyond "I felt like it".
 
2010-11-23 10:58:15 AM
When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?
 
2010-11-23 10:59:45 AM
Judge Ginsburg also wrote that a "reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination and each place he stops and how long he stays there."



We had a thread a few days ago where cops cars are now scanning, running the info, and recording the plates of all vehicles that it passes. Records where and when a vehicle was and saves the data. Perfectly legal and all sorts of people were all for it. So, it seems that if you do it to a specific person, it's unconstitutional, but if you do it to everybody, it's fine.

(cue the people who refuse to see the similarities and will just scream "They are not recording every time you drive your car, including your origin, route, destination and each place you stop and how long you stays there like they did to him!" and although this is true, I have just two words to say about that: NOT YET.)
 
2010-11-23 11:00:47 AM
OIC
 
2010-11-23 11:07:31 AM
Another small victory. There is hope. However, I am sure the tech companies are scrambling to find reasons why their equipment is constitutional.

We need reasonable right to privacy. Its one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

If you want to track someone, you must get a warrant. Its that simple.
 
2010-11-23 11:08:39 AM
Washington Loonie Times

Meh
 
2010-11-23 11:08:58 AM
TheOnion: When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?

Is that the same set of founders that was okay with slavery, denying women the right to vote and whatnot?
 
2010-11-23 11:10:39 AM
If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

/ amifirst?
 
2010-11-23 11:11:10 AM
TheOnion: When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?
 
2010-11-23 11:11:25 AM
mattharvest: Is that the same set of founders that was okay with slavery, denying women the right to vote and whatnot?

Those same deists, yes.
 
2010-11-23 11:12:08 AM
FarkinHostile: So, it seems that if you do it to a specific person, it's unconstitutional, but if you do it to everybody, it's fine.

Exactly. Want to see how it plays out elsewhere?

DUI checkpoints.

If you randomly stop someone for a DUI check, it's automatically unconstitutional. It's over.

if you put up a checkpoint, by definition stopping people without having probable cause to believe they're DUI, it's constitutional so long as you obey a few simple rules regarding notice.

What to see another?

Laws in general.

If you target a particular person or entity with a law, it's unconstitutional. If you have a general law, it's not presumed unconstitutional.

Hell, want to see another?

Religion.

If you target a particular religion, it's presumptively violative of the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (and sometimes the Establishment Clause, as well as Equal Protection). If you target all religions, the same presumption doesn't exist.

This is a long-standing, WIDELY used, standard of law in the US. Generally applicable laws and state actions are always much more acceptable than specifically targeted ones.
 
2010-11-23 11:13:09 AM
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
 
2010-11-23 11:13:50 AM
Oldiron_79: hen the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. B

That word... I think it means what you think it means.
 
2010-11-23 11:14:06 AM
mattharvest: TheOnion: When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?

Is that the same set of founders that was okay with slavery, denying women the right to vote and whatnot?


Yes. We're still trying to figure out how women got the right to vote though. Everyone admits slavery was a mistake.
 
2010-11-23 11:16:46 AM
mattharvest: TheOnion: When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?

Is that the same set of founders that was okay with slavery, denying women the right to vote and whatnot?


Quite possibly. But you bring up a good point, which is that the founders feeling a certain way has no bearing on if it were right or wrong. Though my point was that the 4th amendment clearly would have prohibited this were it conceivable at the time.

There should be an amendment saying, in effect, "No government entity shall systematically track the movement of any citizen of the United States within its borders without probable cause and a court issued warrant". I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would include the police cameras that automatically log all license plates going by a certain area.
 
2010-11-23 11:17:39 AM
Why [Asinine]? This is a good thing.

Get a damn warrant, lazy policetards. Because you couldn't be bothered to do your job, a guilty man is now free.
 
2010-11-23 11:20:04 AM
mattharvest

This is a long-standing, WIDELY used, standard of law in the US. Generally applicable laws and state actions are always much more acceptable than specifically targeted ones.


The scary thing is that technology has reached a point that makes it possible to monitor/record a persons movements in a way that would have been impossible 20 years ago, as well as considered unthinkable and unamerican.

We need to reinforce our principles to reflect this. Once upon a time the very thought of having to produce our papers or having our movements tracked would have been vilified. Now, it's accepted, and even touted as a good thing.

Boy, have times changed.
 
2010-11-23 11:21:11 AM
TheOnion

There should be an amendment saying, in effect, "No government entity shall systematically track the movement of any citizen of the United States within its borders without probable cause and a court issued warrant". I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would include the police cameras that automatically log all license plates going by a certain area.


Make love to me.
 
2010-11-23 11:23:35 AM
FarkinHostile: TheOnion

There should be an amendment saying, in effect, "No government entity shall systematically track the movement of any citizen of the United States within its borders without probable cause and a court issued warrant". I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would include the police cameras that automatically log all license plates going by a certain area.


Make love to me.


Don't leave mt out. NTTIAWTT
 
2010-11-23 11:26:04 AM
mattharvest: FarkinHostile: So, it seems that if you do it to a specific person, it's unconstitutional, but if you do it to everybody, it's fine.

Exactly. Want to see how it plays out elsewhere?

DUI checkpoints.

If you randomly stop someone for a DUI check, it's automatically unconstitutional. It's over.

if you put up a checkpoint, by definition stopping people without having probable cause to believe they're DUI, it's constitutional so long as you obey a few simple rules regarding notice.

What to see another?

Laws in general.

If you target a particular person or entity with a law, it's unconstitutional. If you have a general law, it's not presumed unconstitutional.

Hell, want to see another?

Religion.

If you target a particular religion, it's presumptively violative of the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (and sometimes the Establishment Clause, as well as Equal Protection). If you target all religions, the same presumption doesn't exist.

This is a long-standing, WIDELY used, standard of law in the US. Generally applicable laws and state actions are always much more acceptable than specifically targeted ones.


what do you not understand?

this is referred to as "working as intended". The point is, unless the law is fair to everyone, it is fair to no one. So the idea is that you can't pass something unless it'd apply equally to everyone.

Ban christianity? Illegal. Ban all organized religion? Legal.

It actually makes perfect sense. Either it has to pass muster for the society, or it doesn't.
 
2010-11-23 11:26:53 AM
FarkinHostile:
We had a thread a few days ago where cops cars are now scanning, running the info, and recording the plates of all vehicles that it passes. Records where and when a vehicle was and saves the data. Perfectly legal and all sorts of people were all for it. So, it seems that if you do it to a specific person, it's unconstitutional, but if you do it to everybody, it's fine.

(cue the people who refuse to see the similarities and will just scream "They are not recording every time you drive your car, including your origin, route, destination and each place you stop and how long you stays there like they did to him!" and although this is true, I have just two words to say about that: NOT YET.)


Similarities, yes, but there is also another similarity that is important.

A cop car recording those that pass by it is also similar to a cop noting down in a book what he sees as he patrols. This is different from someone recording every move you make without reason. That is stalking, whether done by a crazy ex-spouse, paparazzi or a government goon.

Yeah, a fine distinction, and a fine line.

But one I am not sure which side I stand on. But since it is in public, if I have the right to record the cops, they have the right to record me.

In fact, I would have no problems with that GPS thing if I could do the same thing to them. And their masters in the town administration, town council, and local, count, state and federal legislatures. And post the locations on a web site, live feed.

In fact, I want to have a camera bolted to the head of every elected official 24 hours a day, as well as to the head of every government official authorized to issue citations, summonses, carry guns, or use force and make arrests, while they are on duty.

They can record me when I can record them.

Turnabout is fair play. Which is probably why it will never happen.
 
2010-11-23 11:27:23 AM
FarkinHostile: The scary thing is that technology has reached a point that makes it possible to monitor/record a persons movements in a way that would have been impossible 20 years ago, as well as considered unthinkable and unamerican.

So?

This is one of those quasi-nostalgic comments that always baffles me, as if Americanism was better "then" than "today". Break this down a bit.

Why does it matter what we'd have thought "unthinkable" or "unamerican" yesterday? Are you saying we've lost something, or diminished our understanding of 'thinkable' or 'american'? Or is it just that people often don't consider whether currently-unfeasible technology is "American"?

You know what else would have been unthinkable? Reality TV (except for COPS). What else? A black president, or a female Secretary of State. What else? Someone as dumb Sarah Palin being a VP candidate (no, wait, Dan Quayle. My bad).

My point is, most things are unthinkable until right before they happen. This is the nature of social change. Until presented with either (a) the extreme likelihood of something happening, or (b) the actual HAPPENING of the thing itself, most people don't think about it, and presume it is impossible.

It's not automatically bad. It's just new and that means you need to reassess your morality and legality standards in the face of a new context in which to act.

I mean, for chrissakes, the Internet e.g. was unthinkable to the Founding Fathers because they couldn't quite fathom how electricity really worked. How "American" is quantum mechanics with all its uncertainty?

Don't fixate on past conceptions of Americanism. Think, instead, about what it should be.
 
2010-11-23 11:28:25 AM
farkingatwork:
It actually makes perfect sense. Either it has to pass muster for the society, or it doesn't.


Um, you just repeated my point. Did you think I was disagreeing with that?
 
2010-11-23 11:30:32 AM
+1 for subby.

Clever title. IMHO, anyway.

Lots of TSA hate on fark to be sure...but you know what? They deserve it.
WWJD? He'd say WTF @ TSA, AFAIK at least. IANAL.
 
2010-11-23 11:31:38 AM
enforcerpsu: Another small victory. There is hope. However, I am sure the tech companies are scrambling to find reasons why their equipment is constitutional.

We need reasonable right to privacy. Its one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

If you want to track someone, you must get a warrant. Its that simple.


Yeah, except that it's not. I wish it was, but it's not. The 9th Circuit has already said that this is legal, look up Juan Pineda-Moreno, where the cops snuck onto his property and hid a GPS tracker in his car.

Now that there's a division between circuits, expect the Supreme Court case to come up either next term or the term after.
 
2010-11-23 11:32:09 AM
TheOnion: When the founders wrote the constitution, something like perpetual GPS tracking was inconceivable. But if it were, is there any doubt that they would absolutely consider that a grossly improper violation of a person's privacy by the government?

i65.photobucket.com
 
2010-11-23 11:34:09 AM
FarkinHostile: Judge Ginsburg also wrote that a "reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination and each place he stops and how long he stays there."



We had a thread a few days ago where cops cars are now scanning, running the info, and recording the plates of all vehicles that it passes. Records where and when a vehicle was and saves the data. Perfectly legal and all sorts of people were all for it. So, it seems that if you do it to a specific person, it's unconstitutional, but if you do it to everybody, it's fine.

(cue the people who refuse to see the similarities and will just scream "They are not recording every time you drive your car, including your origin, route, destination and each place you stop and how long you stays there like they did to him!" and although this is true, I have just two words to say about that: NOT YET.)


The difference is that:

1. Your license plate info is on the outside of your car, therefore public so that anyone can see it.

2. Purposely placing a GPS device on someone's vehicle or person, without their consent, is obviously intrusive, and therefore illegal.

I don't see why the differences would be hard to understand.
 
2010-11-23 11:35:11 AM
HURRRRR
media.washtimes.com
DERP DERP
 
2010-11-23 11:38:17 AM
mattharvest

Don't fixate on past conceptions of Americanism. Think, instead, about what it should be.

Actually, I am.

Monitoring and tracking the movements of free citizens SHOULD BE vilified and illegal.
 
2010-11-23 11:44:34 AM
good. the war on drugs and terror have been slaughtering our rights. about damn time the courts stood up and recognized the dangers.
 
2010-11-23 11:46:05 AM
redmid17: We're still trying to figure out how women got the right to vote though.

It was passed while all the real men were still in Europe right after WWI. That skewed the results.

/Same thing with Prohibition.
 
2010-11-23 11:49:18 AM
phyrkrakr: enforcerpsu: Another small victory. There is hope. However, I am sure the tech companies are scrambling to find reasons why their equipment is constitutional.

We need reasonable right to privacy. Its one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

If you want to track someone, you must get a warrant. Its that simple.

Yeah, except that it's not. I wish it was, but it's not. The 9th Circuit has already said that this is legal, look up Juan Pineda-Moreno, where the cops snuck onto his property and hid a GPS tracker in his car.

Now that there's a division between circuits, expect the Supreme Court case to come up either next term or the term after.


So the 9th Circuit will get overturned again? Shock and awe
 
2010-11-23 11:49:38 AM
dittybopper: It was passed while all the real men were still in Europe right after WWI. That skewed the results.

/Same thing with Prohibition.


That was about the time that prostitution was made illegal, right?
 
2010-11-23 11:52:05 AM
I'm confused. If this guy is such a scumbag and the DOJ needs to track this guys movements during their investigation of him -- then why not get a warrant? Fighting having to get a warrant doesn't make sense.
 
2010-11-23 11:55:25 AM
mikemc3: I'm confused. If this guy is such a scumbag and the DOJ needs to track this guys movements during their investigation of him -- then why not get a warrant? Fighting having to get a warrant doesn't make sense.

Generally it's an issue of how specific a warrant has to be.
 
2010-11-23 12:15:26 PM
Non-evil Monkey: Agrees with the majority of the court here.

I'm not opposed to the use of GPS records if probable cause exists, as the information is out there and shouldn't be artificially ignored, but it shouldn't be used because a Police officer wants to. That just opens the door to way too much abuse.

Now if the suspect had say, set up an automatic link between his GPS and his twitter account, then it's considered public information and can be accessed without a warrant or any justification beyond "I felt like it".


The key to every Fourth Amendment case like this is a phrase called "The reasonable expectation of Privacy" If you have it, a warrant is needed. If you don't, it isn't.

In this case the distinction turns on the "plain sight" vs "enhanced sight argument"

Thus: Cop spys you growing a marijauna plant on an open window sill-no expectation of privacy as any passer-by can see what is going on-no warrant. Cop uses IR-sensing technology to discover the hidden grow farm you have in your basement. Reasonable expectation your windowless basement is private, and he can only see the IR because of his tech, so he'd better have a warrant.

Generally the where autos are concerned, court has been giving you less and less and less of a resonable expectation of privacy. Because it has windows, because it travels on a public street, your privacy threshold for your car is set pretty low by the court. In a GPS case, the police would argue that what they are doing is no different than assigning a patrol car to follow you and observe where you go and when (which would be legal)

The threshold question then is the GPS merely reporting information the cops could already get "in plain site" or does its 24/7 monitoring capability make it something more like enhancing the cops vision?
 
2010-11-23 12:21:48 PM
altinos: dittybopper: It was passed while all the real men were still in Europe right after WWI. That skewed the results.

/Same thing with Prohibition.

That was about the time that prostitution was made illegal, right?


And it's also when gun control got it's start in the US.
 
2010-11-23 12:22:50 PM
The cops desperately track everybody suspicious and when they get something, it's usually inadmissible because they never went through the right steps to do it. Typical gestapo tactics who think they answer to no one, until a trial comes and all their evidence gets thrown out.
 
2010-11-23 12:23:27 PM
There is no excuse for not getting a warrant. It takes about fifteen minutes to get a warrant, even at 4am on Christmas. If something can't wait fifteen minutes and there's clear and present danger to life or property then the situation is an emergency and no warrant is necessary. While stringent adherence to due process protects the innocent from government abuse, more importantly it ensures scumbags are proven guilty to the point there is no doubt of their guilt and that they must be separated from society for the benefit of all.
 
2010-11-23 12:37:42 PM
joeflood: There is no excuse for not getting a warrant. It takes about fifteen minutes to get a warrant, even at 4am on Christmas. If something can't wait fifteen minutes and there's clear and present danger to life or property then the situation is an emergency and no warrant is necessary. While stringent adherence to due process protects the innocent from government abuse, more importantly it ensures scumbags are proven guilty to the point there is no doubt of their guilt and that they must be separated from society for the benefit of all.

When you're used to getting your way because of the uniform you wear, things like "Constitutionality" don't really play into it.

As I understand, cops are MORE likely to stomp you into oblivion (*sprinkle some crack*) if you inform them that they're violating your rights.

They assume that they can do whatever they want, and it's only when the courts intervene and toss out evidence, convictions, etc that cops learn anything.

// like children
// they only learn when you take their toys away
 
2010-11-23 12:38:46 PM
farkingatwork:
Ban christianity? Illegal. Ban all organized religion? Legal.


Nope, you're wrong. Banning all religions would explicitly violate the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


/asinine? Subby I am dissappointed. Why do you have America and civil rights?
 
2010-11-23 12:41:07 PM
Great, so if I am in my car the police cannot legally track me. Good to know.
 
2010-11-23 12:50:53 PM
Penman: Great, so if I am in my car the police cannot legally track me. Good to know.

They can if they show the stuff you post on Fark to a judge and get a warrant.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report