Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Atlantic)   Why the Supreme Court ruling on GPS tracking is worse than it sounds   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Vehicle tracking system, supreme courts, GPS, supreme court ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, majority opinion  
•       •       •

22674 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2012 at 1:53 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-01-24 02:23:51 PM  

DamnYankees: Scerpes: That's a good question, though. I'm not certain that you actually need a warrant to get Onstar data. It doesn't belong to you. It's harder to argue that you have an expectation of privacy in data that belongs to a third party. I would think that this is more akin to bank or telephone and that no warrant would be needed.

You absolutely can have an expectation of privacy with data that belongs to a third party. Think about your medical records - you don't 'own' them. They are the property of the hospital or your doctor.


While you're correct that you can have a right to privacy over records that belong to a third party, that's not a constitutional right per se. Medical records, for example, are private because of statutes like HIPAA. It's a statutorily created right, not one inherent to the Constitution.
 
2012-01-24 02:24:52 PM  

DamnYankees: Scerpes: And yet police don't need a warrant to get them. Yes...you have an expectation of privacy that has been created by statue, not by the Fourth Amendment.

I don't think that's true. Can you cite that?


The one time that I can think of that law enforcement might write a search warrant for medical records is if the medical provider or custodian of records was the subject of the investigation. Medicare fraud, etc.
 
2012-01-24 02:26:29 PM  
FTFA:

In that case, which examined whether the right to privacy extends to public telephone booths, the Court said that the right extends to places where a reasonable person has an expectation of privacy. In Alito's view, long-term GPS tracking for "most offenses" falls beyond the scope of what a reasonable person would expect. But this standard too has problems, "Dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes." How can courts evaluate whether an expectation is reasonable?

So, the standard (enshrined in the immutable principles of the law) depends on "popular attitudes?" Well, then I guess the Constitution and the law can mean anything, depending on "popular attitudes." Heh.
 
2012-01-24 02:26:53 PM  

enforcerpsu: Phone records, gps data, etc, is not.


It used to be when there was a wire that went into your house -- they needed a warrant to "tap" it.. The question is if you've got something in your car or your pocket that's sending that kind of data out all the time. Can the police monitor the traffic on your wireless router -- voice over IP etc? If your neighbor can, there's a pretty good argument the police can too.
 
2012-01-24 02:27:08 PM  
It's narrow, as expected, and somewhat technophobic. Alito's concurrence was much better; the mosaic theory of privacy needs a national endorsement. It'd hopefully nudge private industry towards better safeguards.

The "liberal" wing signing off with Alito was almost as interesting as the average age of the 4 justices on each side (I exclude sotomayor for bridging the gap in her opinion). The Alito side is approx .5 years older.

Also, fn.3 in Alito's concurrence puts any of Scalia's backhanded put-downs to shame.
 
2012-01-24 02:28:34 PM  
It's bad because Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Everything Scalia does is bad by definition.
 
rpm
2012-01-24 02:28:34 PM  

DamnYankees: birchman: Does it really matter anyway? You're carrying a tracking device right now, it's called your cell phone. And if you think for one minute that the govt doesn't have a direct tap into the cell tower databases of every major phone provider, I have a bridge to sell you.

Not to mention the fact that most new cars have GPS now anyway, which I'm sure logs it's data. ONSTAR and similar services definitely do. It's already there so that data can just be confiscated as evidence, they don't even need to install it anymore. I'm sure they can rule that by buying the car with GPS you are consenting to being tracked.

Does the word "warrant" mean anything to you?


And if Onstar was just politely asked for it, like, say ATT was, they'd just refuse?
 
2012-01-24 02:29:06 PM  
This article is what happens when journalists write about stuff that they don't know anything about.

Just like science journalism, or medical journalism, or tech journalism.
 
2012-01-24 02:30:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Scerpes: That's a good question, though. I'm not certain that you actually need a warrant to get Onstar data. It doesn't belong to you. It's harder to argue that you have an expectation of privacy in data that belongs to a third party. I would think that this is more akin to bank or telephone and that no warrant would be needed.

You absolutely can have an expectation of privacy with data that belongs to a third party. Think about your medical records - you don't 'own' them. They are the property of the hospital or your doctor.


I'm not aware of any common law concept of Onstar-Client Confidentiality that developed over several centuries jurisprudence do to the sensitive nature of my hemorrhoids GMC Denali's location.
 
2012-01-24 02:30:48 PM  

RexTalionis: This article is what happens when journalists write about stuff that they don't know anything about.

Just like science journalism, or medical journalism, or tech journalism.


Paranoia over civil liberties generates traffic near as I can tell.
 
2012-01-24 02:36:42 PM  

This About That: The insurance industry will use GPS to track you driving behavior for the purpose of assigning blame or getting out of paying claims.


You know, as a sane person with a good driving record living in a "no fault" state, I really don't have a problem with that. In fact, I would like to see a discount program offered by auto insurance companies. It would be strictly voluntary. If you voluntarily allow them to record your seat belt, speed, acceleration, following distance, etc. you get a 75% discount on your rate. I would volunteer for that in a blink. And of course everyone has the option of not agreeing to the monitoring but paying a higher rate.
 
2012-01-24 02:37:32 PM  

phyrkrakr: DamnYankees: Scerpes: That's a good question, though. I'm not certain that you actually need a warrant to get Onstar data. It doesn't belong to you. It's harder to argue that you have an expectation of privacy in data that belongs to a third party. I would think that this is more akin to bank or telephone and that no warrant would be needed.

You absolutely can have an expectation of privacy with data that belongs to a third party. Think about your medical records - you don't 'own' them. They are the property of the hospital or your doctor.

While you're correct that you can have a right to privacy over records that belong to a third party, that's not a constitutional right per se. Medical records, for example, are private because of statutes like HIPAA. It's a statutorily created right, not one inherent to the Constitution.


I think there was also a common law duty and privilege in there as well before that in many places. HIPPA probably just standardized everything.
 
2012-01-24 02:38:28 PM  

canyoneer: FTFA:

In that case, which examined whether the right to privacy extends to public telephone booths, the Court said that the right extends to places where a reasonable person has an expectation of privacy. In Alito's view, long-term GPS tracking for "most offenses" falls beyond the scope of what a reasonable person would expect. But this standard too has problems, "Dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes." How can courts evaluate whether an expectation is reasonable?

So, the standard (enshrined in the immutable principles of the law) depends on "popular attitudes?" Well, then I guess the Constitution and the law can mean anything, depending on "popular attitudes." Heh.


When the privacy that you're entitled to is based on a "reasonable expectation" the popular attitudes are important.
 
2012-01-24 02:38:52 PM  
tracking you by personal trespass is bad. tracking you by commandeering your own property is bad (using your phone's gps, for example). tracking you by simply physically tracking you, even if with advanced means, is basically no different than following you down the street. it might suck for you but i don't see how you could say someone walking behind you and keeping tabs of what you do to be a fourth amendment issue, so long as they don't trespass on your property in doing so.
 
2012-01-24 02:42:14 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: If you voluntarily allow them to record your seat belt, speed, acceleration, following distance, etc. you get a 75% discount on your rate. I would volunteer for that in a blink. And of course everyone has the option of not agreeing to the monitoring but paying a higher rate.


And then you'd end up with the 'discount' being the same rate as now, while the 'non-discount' rate being far higher. Kind of like grocery store club cards.
 
2012-01-24 02:42:19 PM  

relcec: phyrkrakr: DamnYankees: Scerpes: That's a good question, though. I'm not certain that you actually need a warrant to get Onstar data. It doesn't belong to you. It's harder to argue that you have an expectation of privacy in data that belongs to a third party. I would think that this is more akin to bank or telephone and that no warrant would be needed.

You absolutely can have an expectation of privacy with data that belongs to a third party. Think about your medical records - you don't 'own' them. They are the property of the hospital or your doctor.

While you're correct that you can have a right to privacy over records that belong to a third party, that's not a constitutional right per se. Medical records, for example, are private because of statutes like HIPAA. It's a statutorily created right, not one inherent to the Constitution.

I think there was also a common law duty and privilege in there as well before that in many places. HIPPA probably just standardized everything.


I think the privilege is generally to protect what you tell your doctor, and not to protect your entire records. Obviously, if the doctor records your statement in your records, this gets murky.
 
2012-01-24 02:46:38 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: These days you don't need to put a GPS tracker on anybody, we're all already carrying them. Soon the cops will just pull phone records and check where your phone has been for the past few months.


I don't carry one, nor will I. They'd need to plant a tracker on me.
 
2012-01-24 02:51:09 PM  

DamnYankees: birchman: Does it really matter anyway? You're carrying a tracking device right now, it's called your cell phone. And if you think for one minute that the govt doesn't have a direct tap into the cell tower databases of every major phone provider, I have a bridge to sell you.

Not to mention the fact that most new cars have GPS now anyway, which I'm sure logs it's data. ONSTAR and similar services definitely do. It's already there so that data can just be confiscated as evidence, they don't even need to install it anymore. I'm sure they can rule that by buying the car with GPS you are consenting to being tracked.

Does the word "warrant" mean anything to you?


Delicous fruit filled pastries coupled with spandex and big hair. Why do you ask?
 
2012-01-24 02:52:31 PM  

MasterThief: From what I understand, the Court was only considering whether the GPS tracking was a search, not whether a warrant was required for it.


It's the same question. If it was a search, a warrant (or some substitute safeguard in emergency circumstances) was required. If it wasn't a search, then no warrant was required.
 
2012-01-24 02:52:33 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: You know, as a sane person with a good driving record living in a "no fault" state, I really don't have a problem with that. In fact, I would like to see a discount program offered by auto insurance companies. It would be strictly voluntary. If you voluntarily allow them to record your seat belt, speed, acceleration, following distance, etc. you get a 75% discount on your rate. I would volunteer for that in a blink. And of course everyone has the option of not agreeing to the monitoring but paying a higher rate.


...and that's how it gets sold. Nobody excels at trading your privacy and freedom for a small reduction in payments like the insurance industry. You are expecting a 75% reduction in your premium? This is how I know you have taken the bait. You won't see the slightest decrease in your premium. Anyone who doesn't agree to the surveillance, however, will pay through the nose.
 
2012-01-24 02:53:47 PM  

RexTalionis: herrDrFarkenstein: RexTalionis: herrDrFarkenstein: Use of technology has always treaded more heavily on the Fourth amendment than searches without. For example IR scans of houses to locate Marijuana grows.

Heat is not speech.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make here, since the discussion is about search and seizure and 4th Amendment jurisprudence and not speech and 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

You're recording somebody's communications.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

Papers and effects are communications to be seized.

What the hell does that have to do with heat?


IR scans of houses measure radiated heat.
 
2012-01-24 02:54:07 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Liberal columnist: OMG SKY FAAAAALLING OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAYYYYY


Did you read the article?
 
2012-01-24 02:54:07 PM  
I wholly disagree with the analysis of this article. This is a severe misreading of the case in an attempt to attack Scalia and his focus on an originalist interpretation.

Scalia's reasoning bans the use of any GPS attached to any private property without a warrant. Alito's bans the use of GPS in this instance but clearly leaves the door open for less longterm monitoring.

Scalia does not go beyond this reasoning, because there is no basis for him to do so. The Supreme Court cannot offer advisory opinions. It cannot hypothesize about "what if" scenarios. If it did, this would not be binding dicta.

Further, even if the hypothesis of this article is correct, and Scalia authored an opinion which rules out physically attached GPS devices but he would not agree with an opinion which banned GPS tracking without affixing a device, the point is moot. Sotomayor and the concurring justices from Alito's opinion do leave this door open. That makes a total of 5 justices, at a minimum, that support both propositions.

Any GPS attached to private property is a search:
Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Thomas

Even without a GPS device being physically attached, monitoring may still constitute a 4th amendment violation:
Alito, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan (at a minimum)
 
2012-01-24 02:54:52 PM  

indylaw: It's the same question. If it was a search, a warrant (or some substitute safeguard in emergency circumstances) was required. If it wasn't a search, then no warrant was required.


I'd like to hear some lawyer argue exigent circumstances for the planting of a GPS tracker. That's got lulz potential written all over it.
 
2012-01-24 02:56:05 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: RexTalionis: herrDrFarkenstein: RexTalionis: herrDrFarkenstein: Use of technology has always treaded more heavily on the Fourth amendment than searches without. For example IR scans of houses to locate Marijuana grows.

Heat is not speech.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make here, since the discussion is about search and seizure and 4th Amendment jurisprudence and not speech and 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

You're recording somebody's communications.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

Papers and effects are communications to be seized.

What the hell does that have to do with heat?

IR scans of houses measure radiated heat.


Okay, then what does that have to do with speech? Why would you even bring up speech?
 
2012-01-24 02:59:17 PM  
Also, RexTalionis: pretty much said the same thing I did. So you can probably just read what he wrote.
 
2012-01-24 02:59:28 PM  
Must be farking awesome to get out of a life sentence on some cops being too lazy to put 5 extra minutes of effort into their jobs.
 
2012-01-24 03:01:01 PM  
You mean the government isn't looking out for me? Well that's new.
 
2012-01-24 03:02:38 PM  
cdn.screenrant.com

"Spying on 360 million people is not part of my job description."
 
2012-01-24 03:03:43 PM  
1) Attach GPS to strong magnet.
2) Put Accidentally drop GPS/magnet in public street just at edge of target driveway.
3) Car drives over GPS/magnet -- GPS/magnet attaches to car.

Trespass?
 
2012-01-24 03:09:04 PM  

Scerpes: When the privacy that you're entitled to is based on a "reasonable expectation" the popular attitudes are important.


Yeah, just ask Dred Scott. Popular attitudes were important in his case, too.
 
2012-01-24 03:09:25 PM  
I wonder if the Fourth Amendment would apply in this situation. We're all interested parties, as we all have electric meters:

Smart electricity meters can be used to spy on private homes

By Matt Liebowitz

One system could reveal if you're home, away, sleeping - even what film you're watching on TV

Smart electricity meters provide power companies with an accurate and streamlined method of monitoring, reading and controlling a home's power usage. That convenience, however, comes at a steep price and could put homeowners' safety in jeopardy.

After signing up with the German smart-meter firm Discovergy, [] researchers detected that the company's devices transmitted unencrypted data from the home devices back to the company's servers over an insecure link. The researchers, Dario Carluccio and Stephan Brinkhaus, intercepted the supposedly confidential and sensitive information, and, based on the fingerprint of power usage, were able to tell not only whether or not the homeowners were home, away or even sleeping, but also what movie they were watching on TV.

[snip]

Flaws in Discovergy's Web interface also enabled the researchers to send back rigged meter readings to the company, and to tap into the company's servers and obtain a complete record of all the information collected by a home's smart meter.


[snip]

Link (new window)

We put a sign under our non-hackable analog meter saying "DO NOT REPLACE METER. We refuse the smart meter due to safety and health issues." They passed us and our other neighbors who did the same thing by when they put up smart meters on other houses.
 
2012-01-24 03:14:25 PM  

birchman: Does it really matter anyway? You're carrying a tracking device right now, it's called your cell phone. And if you think for one minute that the govt doesn't have a direct tap into the cell tower databases of every major phone provider, I have a bridge to sell you.


Yes and no.
 
2012-01-24 03:16:58 PM  
I'm glad they generally were all thinking along positive lines though -- basically that previously intrusive monitoring was impractical and easily detectable so didn't need a lot of protection -- you could certainly physically follow a person in public all you wanted, but they would probably notice and it would be a huge investment in time and resources. However, with technology you could easily envision where a city had access to a number of surveillance cameras equipped with face recognition and license plate recognition that could monitor all your activities constantly with no effort and with little chance of discovery.

I think the answer is that the idea of a "search" has to do with the intention regardless of the technology: If you decide you want to monitor an individual, it is a search and requires a warrant.

For example, in the surveillance camera example I gave above, it would be legal to have the cameras continuously monitoring all the activity they can record without a warrant, but as soon as you want to analyze the recordings to find an individual then it would require a warrant.
 
2012-01-24 03:17:47 PM  
You people do understand that cops have been tracking people for years, without need of a warrant, using planes and helicopters, right?
 
2012-01-24 03:19:47 PM  

This About That: ...and that's how it gets sold. Nobody excels at trading your privacy and freedom for a small reduction in payments like the insurance industry. You are expecting a 75% reduction in your premium? This is how I know you have taken the bait. You won't see the slightest decrease in your premium. Anyone who doesn't agree to the surveillance, however, will pay through the nose.


I already have tangible discounts in my rate because of a good driving record, a signed statement that I wear a seat belt, etc. My rate visibly went down, and has stayed down for years. I'm not sure why you equate a 75% discount with no change.

Whatever. That's a glass half full/empty argument anyway. However you want to look at it, if the monitored person pays a lower rate than the person of equivalent age/record/area who doesn't agree to the monitoring, that's basically saying the same thing I did.
 
2012-01-24 03:21:45 PM  

GAT_00: Scerpes: GAT_00: Damn liberal justices upholding the Constitution. Who do they think they are? There's only the 2nd and 10th Amendments!

That Justice Alito. He's a regular ACLU member.

He's the unpredictable one of the conservative side. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are easily predictable. Alito usually rules with them, but not always.


I think the best explanation is that he's a very conservative jurist, but not an originalist in the vein of Scalia, or at the very end of that spectrum, Thomas.
 
2012-01-24 03:25:21 PM  
But does this leave it open to track a vehicle via OnStar? If they didn't physically attach it to the car it seems that they could use it.
 
2012-01-24 03:26:51 PM  

RexTalionis: indylaw: It's the same question. If it was a search, a warrant (or some substitute safeguard in emergency circumstances) was required. If it wasn't a search, then no warrant was required.

I'd like to hear some lawyer argue exigent circumstances for the planting of a GPS tracker. That's got lulz potential written all over it.


Actually, I think that came up in the oral argument. It was a pretty lulzy one, I would recommend listening to it.

\Yes, I've been known to listen to Supreme Court oral arguments in my spare time.
\\Shaddup.
 
2012-01-24 03:27:33 PM  

RexTalionis: indylaw: It's the same question. If it was a search, a warrant (or some substitute safeguard in emergency circumstances) was required. If it wasn't a search, then no warrant was required.

I'd like to hear some lawyer argue exigent circumstances for the planting of a GPS tracker. That's got lulz potential written all over it.


With this Supreme Court? They'll find just about any excuse for the cops.
 
2012-01-24 03:31:32 PM  

DamnYankees: birchman: Does it really matter anyway? You're carrying a tracking device right now, it's called your cell phone. And if you think for one minute that the govt doesn't have a direct tap into the cell tower databases of every major phone provider, I have a bridge to sell you.

Not to mention the fact that most new cars have GPS now anyway, which I'm sure logs it's data. ONSTAR and similar services definitely do. It's already there so that data can just be confiscated as evidence, they don't even need to install it anymore. I'm sure they can rule that by buying the car with GPS you are consenting to being tracked.

Does the word "warrant" mean anything to you?


Actually in some jurisdictions it is a super-warrant, requiring *at least* probable cause. See, in re application for pen register and trap/trace device with cell site location authority, 396 F.Supp.2d 747 (S.D. Texas, 2005) (cell site information requires a warrant, especially when it is a prospective request), State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 (1982) (toll billing records require a warrant); c.f. In re application of the US..., 620 F.3d 304 (3d cir, 2010) (prob cause for cell site data is at courts discretion, note this is for historical cell site data and not an in-progress trap and trace)

Most jurisdictions allow historical data to be turned over under subpoena (in relation to an investigation of an indictable offense/felony), it is the value of information in aggregate that the court punted on in Jones.

/sorry for no links, posted from a cell phone
 
2012-01-24 03:34:32 PM  

cig-mkr: But does this leave it open to track a vehicle via OnStar? If they didn't physically attach it to the car it seems that they could use it.


That's why Sotomayor's controlling concurrence is important. Under the majority opinion, the question is left open. Alito's concurrence would pretty flatly say it's a violation. Sotomayor's concurrence says that while she agrees with the larger reasoning of the Alito opinion, she prefers to decide the case more narrowly.

So basically, while not technically binding on the lower courts, they're going to pay close attention to those concurrences if a case like this without the trespass element comes up.
 
2012-01-24 03:38:13 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: if the monitored person pays a lower rate than the person of equivalent age/record/area who doesn't agree to the monitoring, that's basically saying the same thing I did.


Not quite. You didn't get the part where I mentioned trading your privacy and freedom for a token reduction in your premium. There will always be a manufactured rationale for voluntarily giving up your basic rights to some corporation for that corporation's benefit. You haven't won anything in giving up your right to privacy. You have simply joined all the other dupes in selling out the rest of us.
 
2012-01-24 03:42:06 PM  

Scerpes: GAT_00: Damn liberal justices upholding the Constitution. Who do they think they are? There's only the 2nd and 10th Amendments!

That Justice Alito. He's a regular ACLU member.


And that is bad how? Seems to me the vast majority of ACLU cases seem to be based in the reasoning that the government is overstepping their boundaries. Which, last i checked, was one of the major cornerstones of the Republican doctrine. But since the churches seem to like to demonize the ACLU because they defend people right to make their own choices on things like abortion, your use of ACLU is supposed to be slandering. I remember a time when I was in HS having my mother ranting about the evils of the ACLU after returning from church. I am just glad she does not buy into the majority of the church propaganda anymore.

I just hope that one day people who side with the church / republicans will actually take a few steps back and really look at issues from outside of their current (conditioned from childhood) mindset and realize that the vast majority of what they have been taught is outdated and/or wrong.
 
2012-01-24 03:44:25 PM  

This About That: here will always be a manufactured rationale for voluntarily giving up your basic rights to some corporation for that corporation's benefit.


Isn't it my basic right to decide that for myself? Aren't you arguing that I shouldn't get to make this decision, and you should make it for me?
 
2012-01-24 03:45:27 PM  

sunnewswebguy: [cdn.screenrant.com image 550x309]

"Spying on 360 million people is not part of my job description."


All I read was "titty sprinkles".
 
2012-01-24 03:50:34 PM  

DarnoKonrad:
It used to be when there was a wire that went into your house -- they needed a warrant to "tap" it..



You don't really believe that, do you?
 
2012-01-24 03:51:15 PM  
OK, they ruled it's illegal to plant a tracking device on 'em. But what if they voluntarily carry a tracking device on 'em?

img.metro.co.uk

/real phone call:

me: hello

them: hi, it's _______, i'm looking for a geocache you found. It's called...

me: yep, i know what it's called, and it's at N 30° 2_.___, W 089° 2_.___ . You're right on top of it.

them: how did you know?

me: i got this app
 
2012-01-24 03:58:39 PM  

PAPASandBEER: So, even though the framers of the constitution never contemplated the use of such advanced technology, we should just assume we know how they would have applied the words they wrote, representing ideas they did understand, to this situation? Or do we not care what the document means at all now?


Well, the Constitution doesn't mention GPS anywhere at all in it. Not once. So, following strict constructionalism, the federal government cannot have any authority to do anything with GPS at all, those powers must reside with states or the people. By this logic, the very fact of the government operating the GPS satellites is an unconstitutional abuse of it's powers. Those damn things should be de-orbited immediately.

/You can say that the Constitution shouldn't be a living document and should be interpreted strictly as written, but if you do, don't be suprised when it doesn't begin to cover shiat invented in the last century.
 
2012-01-24 04:10:39 PM  

DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Actually, I'd go the other route and say that it's not that bad after all.

I think I agree. They did the right thing, and I don't think the idea of satellite tracking is nearly as simple as TFA wants to make it seem.


You're kidding, right?
Think of OnStar providing constant GPS info on you to whoever asks without a warrant.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report