Obama backs warrantless GPS tracking of citizens

[MotF Bane]

Everyday I regret voting for Obama more and more. Can't believe I was taken in by him.

You now realize that the two party system has no potential for change?

 

[fskimospy]

Gotcha, the MSM is unbiased because it's appropriate to blame Bush and inappropriate to blame Obama.

The beauty of the rule is that one can substitute any Republican and any Democrat on any possible issue and get the exact same results. It will always be valid to blame to Republican. It will never be valid to blame the Democrat. Thus, there can never be bias.

Just in case it's unclear to anyone NOT living in a bubble, Bozell was not making the case that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices. He is merely making the case that the mainstream media attaches blame to Bush and does not attach blame to Obama. This holds true for virtually all Republicans and Democrats on virtually all issues over virtually all time periods - all of which will be arbitrary of course. Bubble boys may remain secure knowing that this is not bias because on virtually every issue, every Republican is as guilty as homemade sin and every Democrat is as pure as the wind-driven snow in Chicago.

Uhmmm, did you read your own 'study'? He spends half of it doing exactly that. Not only is this a problem that he is complaining that the media isn't making false linkages, but he chooses a window of twenty days. If you're going to establish a thesis of pervasive and enduring nationwide media bias, you should probably stretch your study out longer than an extended baseball homestand.

The 'study' you linked is nothing more than a partisan hit piece by an obviously biased organization. If there is such a trend as you claim, there should be plenty of studies by credible organizations that show such a bias. Why don't you go look for them and get back to us? (oh, and if you do find them you might want to check to see if they have been discredited already.)

Once again, you're captive to a delusional world view, and now it's one that you're trying to project on other people.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Update
http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admi...low+Warrantless+GPS+Tracking/article22021.htm

White House urges Supreme Court to consider nullifying Constitutional protections again warrantless searches
...
On Monday the Supreme Course announced [PDF] that it would review the case. The new case will be titled "United States v. Antoine Jones, No. 10-1259". The case will begin in October with attorneys for both sides delivering arguments.

My guess is that they uphold the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court and the Obama Administration. Needless to say, headed for a showdown...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fourth Amendment protections would harm the war on terror and drug enforcement...everybody knows this. Screw the US Constitution and imagined rights it affords US citizens. Obama 2012! Vote early and often!

 

[MotF Bane]

FEAR! TERRAH!

 

[mchammer187]

Definitely in the wrong here but I really don't see Bachman or Romney on the other side of this issue. Maybe Ron Paul but he is never gonna win anyway

 

[waggy]

its scary when the goverment is saying we need to nullify a citizens rights..

 

[Gintaras]

It's ok...just keep telling to people in other countries that you in
US have more freedoms...

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

 

[xj0hnx]

Attorneys for the administration blasted the ruling, saying that allowing the Fourth Amendment protections would harm the war on terror and drug enforcement.

This administration is a sick joke. ZOMG fail surveillance is going to hinder two of the most fail policies in this countries history!!!! Hide yer daughters, hide yer wife, cocaine snortin' terrorist iz cummin' 4 them!!!!

 

[woolfe9999]

Meh, they're right. There isn't an expectation of privacy when you're driving your vehicle out in public. Not really even on private property since you can usually be seen from public areas. I don't see a problem with this. It's different if they're putting a tap into your car and can hear what you're saying.

 

[NoStateofMind]

If you are a terror/drug suspect then a warrant needs to be obtained. Being too lax on 4th amendment issues will result in abuse. Someone should set up a service for GPS finders, remove and box up each one individually then ship them to post offices across the country. Should be good for a laugh.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Last I checked I could tell Steve Jobs and Apple to stick their iphone up their ass, not so much with LEO.

And if there is enough evidence for the police to covertly install a tracking device or tail a suspect there should be plenty of evidence for a judge to issue a warrant.

The same assholes that think this is ok because you are in public also say that it is/should be a crime for you to video tape LEO when they are in public.

But hey, its all for domestic security right? Just bend over and relax and it won't hurt quite as bad...

 

[Darwin333]

Meh, they're right. There isn't an expectation of privacy when you're driving your vehicle out in public. Not really even on private property since you can usually be seen from public areas. I don't see a problem with this. It's different if they're putting a tap into your car and can hear what you're saying.

So basically you think that as technology improves your 4th amendment rights automatically erode?

I can purchase a parabolic microphone and listen to your private conversations on your private property from my private property. Is that ok? I haven't installed anything or even entered your private property, I am simply exercising my rights on my own private property...


Tell you what, if you really believe what you just said then go stick a few covert tracking devices on your local judges vehicles and after a month or so start posting all of their movements online. They have no expectation of privacy so all should be good, right?

 

[xj0hnx]

And if there is enough evidence for the police to covertly install a tracking device or tail a suspect there should be plenty of evidence for a judge to issue a warrant.

Exfuckingactly. Enough of the fishing expeditions, either you have evidence that someone is doing something bad, or you don't.

 

[woolfe9999]

So basically you think that as technology improves your 4th amendment rights automatically erode?

?

No I do not. The question is what ARE your 4th amendment rights to begin with? You have to answer that question before opining about whether they are "eroding" or not. The SCOTUS has never, since the inception of the Constitution, held that citizens have 4th Amendments protections where there is no expectation of privacy. If you're out in public, anyone can see where you are and where you are walking or driving. As someone said earlier, what is the difference between this and the police following you in a car? It's just a cheaper and more efficient way of doing that, and putting a tail on someone has never required a warrant, nor should it.

I can purchase a parabolic microphone and listen to your private conversations on your private property from my private property. Is that ok? I haven't installed anything or even entered your private property, I am simply exercising my rights on my own private property...

Read the last sentence of the post you responded to. Listening to a private conservation is an entirely different matter. For that they do need a warrant.

Tell you what, if you really believe what you just said then go stick a few covert tracking devices on your local judges vehicles and after a month or so start posting all of their movements online. They have no expectation of privacy so all should be good, right.

There isn't anything illegal about it. Go do it yourself.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

If you are a terror/drug suspect then a warrant needs to be obtained. Being too lax on 4th amendment issues will result in abuse. Someone should set up a service for GPS finders, remove and box up each one individually then ship them to post offices across the country. Should be good for a laugh.

That's about the fifth time in this thread that people have characterized this in terms of "drugs/terror" and nothing else. I see what you are all doing here and its disengenuous. Of course the war on drugs is an easy target because it's a failure and the terrorism threat is overplayed. So if I'm a libertarian I'll use those as examples. However, this of course is about any type of crime. Let's frame it in terms of the suspected murderer, rapist, child molester, or arsenist. Funny how many people arbitrarily pick two categories of crime to frame the entire issue.

 

[NoStateofMind]

There isn't anything illegal about it. Go do it yourself.

- wolf

Do you actually think this would not incur some sort of investigation as to why you are GPS tracking judges? You aren't that naive.

 

[bfdd]

It's still your property they are tampering with, regardless if it's on your land or public land. Unless there's an agreement that whatever you leave on public land is public property, I don't see how them installing a GPS tracking device on your car is any different than tapping your phone line. Your phone line isn't solely on your property either.

 

[woolfe9999]

Do you actually think this would not incur some sort of investigation as to why you are GPS tracking judges? You aren't that naive.

What relevance did Darwin's comment even have to the Constitionality of this practice? That would be a better question to answer.

 

[manlymatt83]

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.

Are you serious? One is voluntary, the other isn't. If the government comes up to you and says "here, would you like a monthly contract at $99/mo for this GPS tracking device?", and you say "sure", then all is good.

Hence the WARRANT.

 

[NoStateofMind]

That's about the fifth time in this thread that people have characterized this in terms of "drugs/terror" and nothing else. I see what you are all doing here and its disengenuous. Of course the war on drugs is an easy target because it's a failure and the terrorism threat is overplayed. So if I'm a libertarian I'll use those as examples. However, this of course is about any type of crime. Let's frame it in terms of the suspected murderer, rapist, child molester, or arsenist. Funny how many people arbitrarily pick two categories of crime to frame the entire issue.

That's because THEY (read that as the executive branch) deemed it to hinder their terrorism/drug investigations. From the article:

That would have been the final say, had the Obama administration not intervened. Attorneys for the administration blasted the ruling, saying that allowing the Fourth Amendment protections would harm the war on terror and drug enforcement.

They framed the situation and I gave my input.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's because THEY (read that as the executive branch) deemed it to hinder their terrorism/drug investigations. From the article:



They framed the situation and I gave my input.

Fair enough, my apologies then. However, this still applies to crime in general, not just those two categories.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What relevance did Darwin's comment even have to the Constitionality of this practice? That would be a better question to answer.

Oh stop it. You know exactly what he was saying and I feel like I shouldn't have to explain it to you, you're too damned smart to play naive, woofle. Essentially he's saying "What's good/constitutional for the goose should be good/constitutional for the gander". You and I both know that's not the case and such a thing carried out by a citizen would be deemed a potential threat to the welfare of (in this hypothetical situation) a judge.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's still your property they are tampering with, regardless if it's on your land or public land. Unless there's an agreement that whatever you leave on public land is public property, I don't see how them installing a GPS tracking device on your car is any different than tapping your phone line. Your phone line isn't solely on your property either.

"Tampering with property" isn't a 4th Amendment issue. If they damage your property, you are entitled to compensation as a civil matter. But that isn't a Constitutional issue. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of individuals when they are in the zone where privacy can reasonably be expected. It has nothing to do with attaching a thingy to your car, unless the thingy is recording your private conservations.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh stop it. You know exactly what he was saying and I feel like I shouldn't have to explain it to you, you're too damned smart to play naive, woofle. Essentially he's saying "What's good/constitutional for the goose should be good/constitutional for the gander". You and I both know that's not the case and such a thing carried out by a citizen would be deemed a potential threat to the welfare of (in this hypothetical situation) a judge.

No I'm not playing obtuse. I know exactly what he meant, and it has no Constitutional relevance. It's like saying, gee, if the state can do this, I should be able to do this to the state. But that is silly. What is the point in having a government if it has no power that the individual also does not have? And more to the point: it just isn't relevant to the 4th Amendment. Nor do I know the answer to his question, but even if I could posit an answer, it was a rhetorical question anyway.

I think there's a disconnect here because often I am trying to explain how the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts, in this case for over 200 years, and people are stuck on how they want things to be.