Obama backs warrantless GPS tracking of citizens

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/scotus-gps-monitoring/
The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects’ vehicles to track their every move.
...
The Justice Department, saying “a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements (.pdf) from one place to another,” is demanding the justices undo a lower court decision that reversed the conviction and life sentence of a cocaine dealer whose vehicle was tracked via GPS for a month without a court warrant.
...
The government told the justices that GPS devices have become a common tool in crime fighting. An officer shooting a dart can affix them to moving vehicles
Click to expand...

This follows a controversy a little while back back about a citizen who discovered an FBI tracking device on his car that was placed there without a court order / warrant.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/
A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online.
Click to expand...

I do not see the problem here, if Steve Jobs can track your location via your cell phone without your consent / knowledge, why not law enforcement? This is no different than having the police tail you. The only problem I see in this is that they could track you on your private property should you exit public roads.

I applaud Obama for his domestic security policy, this makes the job of law enforcement much easier since you do not have to assign an officer to tail a suspect (and move him away from his other duties). This, in turn, reduces manpower requirements and leads to more cost effective law enforcement.
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Schadenfroh said:
I do not see the problem here, if Steve Jobs can track your location via your cell phone without your consent / knowledge, why not law enforcement?
Click to expand...

A small government advocate should see the inherent distinction there, no?
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Where is the ACLU on this one? Is everyone who screamed Bush trampled our civil rights gonna be screaming out here, or is it fine when a Democrat does it?
 
Last edited:
R

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Schadenfroh said:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/scotus-gps-monitoring/


This follows a controversy a little while back back about a citizen who discovered an FBI tracking device on his car that was placed there without a court order / warrant.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/


I do not see the problem here, if Steve Jobs can track your location via your cell phone without your consent / knowledge, why not law enforcement? This is no different than having the police tail you. The only problem I see in this is that they could track you on your private property should you exit public roads.

I applaud Obama for his domestic security policy, this makes the job of law enforcement much easier since you do not have to assign an officer to tail a suspect (and move him away from his other duties). This, in turn, reduces manpower requirements and leads to more cost effective law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I have a choice on whether I own a iPhone or not. In owning a iPhone, the owner has made a choice to allow Apple to log his/her movements.

The government gives you no such choice.
 
Lithium381

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
5
81
To make it fair, they should put all police and federal vehicles on that tracking list and make it available to the public online in real time. undercover or not.
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Schadenfroh said:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/scotus-gps-monitoring/


This follows a controversy a little while back back about a citizen who discovered an FBI tracking device on his car that was placed there without a court order / warrant.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/


I do not see the problem here, if Steve Jobs can track your location via your cell phone without your consent / knowledge, why not law enforcement? This is no different than having the police tail you. The only problem I see in this is that they could track you on your private property should you exit public roads.

I applaud Obama for his domestic security policy, this makes the job of law enforcement much easier since you do not have to assign an officer to tail a suspect (and move him away from his other duties). This, in turn, reduces manpower requirements and leads to more cost effective law enforcement.
Click to expand...


I have an app on my droid that has access to all of my sms messages so therefore the .gov should have full access to those messages as well without needing to obtain a pesky warrant?
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Matt1970 said:
Where is the ACLU on this one? Is everyone who screamed Bush trampled our civil rights gonna be screaming out here, or is it fine when a Democrat does it?
Click to expand...

They're here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/02/eff-wisconsin-just-say-no-warrantless-gps-tracking

And here.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/13313126...ntless-gps-tracking-by-police?redirected=true

It doesn't matter who does it, it's wrong. The ACLU protects our civil liberties without being blinded by political party.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Meh. I can't get very excited about this, although it would be nice for the FBI et al to have some judicial supervision. If they cannot get a warrant at the time, it should at least be reported and justified at some point.

Nice to see the ACLU showing consistency though. I'll refrain from calling them the Atheist Communist Litigation Unit for the rest of the week.
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Lithium381 said:
To make it fair, they should put all police and federal vehicles on that tracking list and make it available to the public online in real time. undercover or not.
Click to expand...

Considering where technology is moving, there are interesting questions that will need to be answered. Tracking and A/V recording devices are everywhere and only becoming even more ubiquitous. Is it worth trying to fight it, or should we simply give in and set up a panopticon society where everything can be seen by everybody at all times. We certainly can't allow this to be one-sided. Governments have proven throughout history that they can't be trusted. Will privacy eventually be a thing of the past? If it were, would knowing that people could also watch you make you less interested in watching others? The people you were watching would know you were watching them, and could watch you watch them.

There have to be sci-fi novels that deal with this sort of thing.
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Matt1970 said:
I am glad to see the ACLU step up on this one but they are hardly bi-partisan.
Click to expand...

Well, they are only bipartisan in as far as the Bill of Rights is. The Second Amendment is the darling of conservatives. The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth are the liberal ones. Technically the ACLU would defend the Second too if their definition of it were in jeopardy. However they hold a fairly limited view of it and their view has not come under attack. I find their view on the second to be too narrow, but I find the entire conservative view on it to be ... dangerously psychotic.
 
nick1985

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
thraashman said:
Well, they are only bipartisan in as far as the Bill of Rights is. The Second Amendment is the darling of conservatives. The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth are the liberal ones. Technically the ACLU would defend the Second too if their definition of it were in jeopardy. However they hold a fairly limited view of it and their view has not come under attack. I find their view on the second to be too narrow, but I find the entire conservative view on it to be ... dangerously psychotic.
Click to expand...

The 10th is not a liberal one, they hate state's rights. Everyone knows this.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
thraashman said:
Well, they are only bipartisan in as far as the Bill of Rights is. The Second Amendment is the darling of conservatives. The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth are the liberal ones. Technically the ACLU would defend the Second too if their definition of it were in jeopardy. However they hold a fairly limited view of it and their view has not come under attack. I find their view on the second to be too narrow, but I find the entire conservative view on it to be ... dangerously psychotic.
Click to expand...
I suppose you prefer the liberal interpretation, that you have the right to bear arms when and only when government puts them in your hands and sends you off to war?
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
the first article i read on this today mentioned the ACLU being pissed about this.
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
nick1985 said:
The 10th is not a liberal one, they hate state's rights. Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

Well, technically speaking modern American "liberals" are anything but liberal. They're just authoritarians who don't hate gays and blacks. There are very few liberals in the US today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom