The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The courts have ruled that it is not a violation of your rights for the authorities to stick a GPS tracking device on your car to collect evidence against you. :eek:

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.
Click to expand...
 
If this has you worried, just do what I do…I pretend the government is always tracking me, that way I won’t be surprised when I find out they actually are following me.
 
So there is no reasonable expectation of privacy if I say have a gated drive way on a few fenced in acres? I beg to differ.
 
If the government tracks me, they'll only be wasting our money while proving that I just might be the most boring person alive.

However, if I actually FIND a GPS module under my car, I'll be sure to see what I can do towards humanely attaching it onto the collar of a stray animal.
 
So the federal government is saying that it's OK to film cops out on the road. Guess that case is settled.
 
you guys should see the paranoid responses to this over on the Daily Tech forum. You'd think this allowed the government to search your computer for pron and tell all your neighbors about it.

It's not that big of a deal. This just means that if your car is out in the open, they can track it. They could do that anyway by just tailing a person. This method just allows them to track someone with less chance of being caught and diverted, and to do it with fewer people. The only people that need to worry about any of this are the really, really bad people.
 
When I heard about this yesterday, I told a friend of mine that it'd be funny to move the tracking device to the officer's wife's car. Might be in for a surprise!
 
My history teacher told me about this and the court ruled in favor of the cop, because in the first amendment, it says nothing about privacy. I think this is BULL! :rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

SAY WHAT!? I also believe it is still legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property. Someone needs to bug the A-hole's car that made that decision and put it on the web so that everyone can track his movements. Then we'll see if he still feels there's "reasonable expectation of privacy". Un-F'ing believable.
 
With GPS in every modern phone, I seriously doubt that the feds need to stick anything to your car - they can just ask your cellular company to track any and all your moves lol :D
 
It seems to me that a simple no trespassing sign should be enough to suffice that they do not have permission to enter your property. It is legally binding. All everybody has to do is post a sign that says that, and they should legally, be good to go. At least in their own driveway. But it wouldn't stop them from slapping it on your car somewhere else.
 
TehQuick said:
With GPS in every modern phone, I seriously doubt that the feds need to stick anything to your car - they can just ask your cellular company to track any and all your moves lol :D
Click to expand...

Indeed, ever wonder why everyone can't live without a cell phone? They are sooo kewl! This is nothing new. It's part of the beginning of a coup d'etat.
 
Time to buy a decoy car that i take out only when i am doing illegal things..
 
hasoos said:
It seems to me that a simple no trespassing sign should be enough to suffice that they do not have permission to enter your property. It is legally binding. All everybody has to do is post a sign that says that, and they should legally, be good to go. At least in their own driveway. But it wouldn't stop them from slapping it on your car somewhere else.
Click to expand...

A "No Trespassing" sign is not enough to create a reasonable expectation of privacy for "open fields,"
 
dgingeri said:
fenced in? That would require a warrant. Out in the open doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any difference. You cannot trespass without at least probable cause or permission; the same with physical private property like a car.

I think they're equating this with line-of-sight observation from a public location. Perhaps, once you go onto private property and tamper with private property. This is the same as walking up someone's lawn and pushing open a window so you can see whether they're doing anything illegal.
 
TehQuick said:
With GPS in every modern phone, I seriously doubt that the feds need to stick anything to your car - they can just ask your cellular company to track any and all your moves lol :D
Click to expand...

They have to have a warrant for that though. They don't have to for put a GPS tracking device on your car while it's available to the public (that includes sitting in your unsecured driveway.
 
jeverson said:
SAY WHAT!? I also believe it is still legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property.
Click to expand...

Not sure what state you live in, but I consulted with a cop here in IL and he said that you can only use an approriate and justified level of violence to respond to a threat to yourself or your property. Meaning that someone simply stepping on your property wouldn't be enough to justify shooting someone. ...and that a court would take into consideration whether the response to the threat warranted shooting them. Oh...and that doesn't stop their family (or them if they're still alive) from suing you.
 
the same should apply to clothing - they aren't searching you, just your clothes.

If you take your clothes in public there is no expectation of privacy.
 
grizzed said:
the same should apply to clothing - they aren't searching you, just your clothes.

If you take your clothes in public there is no expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

That would fall under your effects. Now, if you take your jacket off, set it on the table, and walk away...
 
Wonder if they would pitch a fit if it were reversed? Can I put a GPS tracker on a gov employees car when it is out in the open? Seems only fair.
 
Why is anyone surprised by this? For gods sake, you got NSA and echelon, CIA, Homeland Security, so it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
We who are living outside USA have seen a big change in USA after 9/11, I don't know if you see it yourself but the whole country has gone apesh** paranoid.
 
I wonder how this decision jives with another similar court decision made earlier this month..
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0

Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant.

In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it was on private property and then used it to track the position of the automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all without securing a search warrant. In an amicus brief filed in the case, EFF and the ACLU of the Nation's Capital argued that unsupervised use of such tactics would open the door for police to abuse their power and continuously track anyone's physical location for any reason, without ever having to go to a judge to prove the surveillance is justified.

The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search warrant based on probable cause. The court expressly rejected the government's argument that such extended, 24-hours-per-day surveillance without warrants was constitutional based on previous rulings about limited, point-to-point surveillance of public activities using radio-based tracking beepers. Recognizing that the Supreme Court had never considered location tracking of such length and scope, the court noted: "When it comes to privacy...the whole may be more revealing than its parts."
Click to expand...

No wonder I never wanted to be a lawyer and hate TV law shows.. except for this guy cuz he always won..

perrymason2.jpg
 
jvz555 said:
My history teacher told me about this and the court ruled in favor of the cop, because in the first amendment, it says nothing about privacy. I think this is BULL! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This has NOTHING to do with privacy. This is for cases where the car is out in the open only. It does not cover cars in garages or behind fences. That is the whole basis of the ruling. Even a "no trespassing" sign is not enough. If someone can just walk up to the car unobstructed, they can legally put a tracker on it, but they cannot defeat any attempts at privacy on the property.

Also, you can't just shoot someone on your property, nor even in your house, unless they are threatening you. In your yard, even if threatened, you can't just shoot. Inside the house, you can shoot if they forced their way in, but aren't threatening you. If you invited them in, they have to be threatening in order for you to legally shoot. There are restrictions. It does have to be "affirmative defense." There is no defense if a kid runs into your yard to retrieve a ball and you shoot him, or a guy cuts the corner of your yard while walking along the sidewalk, or a meter reader walks up to the house to get a reading, or a couple Mormons walk up to your front door to tell you about God. There are many harmless points for someone to walk onto your property, and this include official police business.
 
rufio said:
Wonder if they would pitch a fit if it were reversed? Can I put a GPS tracker on a gov employees car when it is out in the open? Seems only fair.
Click to expand...

Actually, you could. Private investigators do it when they have cause.
 
dgingeri said:
It's not that big of a deal. This just means that if your car is out in the open, they can track it. They could do that anyway by just tailing a person. This method just allows them to track someone with less chance of being caught and diverted, and to do it with fewer people. The only people that need to worry about any of this are the really, really bad people.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but if they are really really bad people they could get a search warrent without a problem. All this does is allow them to track honest citizens without issue.
 
Fed law enforcement is not wasting their time putting tracking devices on just anybody. Contrary to popular belief, they still have to get approval from everybody AND their brother outside of the courts. So don't worry, your roaches are safe in your car ashtray.
 
The only reason they passed this rulling was so that the case it actually applies to didn't get thrown out. I'm sure the DEA/AG made some phone calls and got it ligitimized just so they could take down this pot grower.
 
Only question is, if I remove and destroy it can they get me on destruction of government property, I mean in my eyes they attached it to my car they are basically giving it as a gift to me.
 
djoye said:
So the federal government is saying that it's OK to film cops out on the road. Guess that case is settled.
Click to expand...

I can imagine the police and courts would come down hard on you if you tried tracking police or politicians.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
So if I am a government employee living in a toney house in the suburbs with an attached garage, then enforcers may not attach GPS to my car without warrant. However, if I am a young waiter living in an apartment with resident parking lot, then enforcers may attach GPS to my car without warrant.

Oh my. This must be in violation of the Patriot Act. ;-)

What say you, ACLU?
 
jeverson said:
SAY WHAT!? I also believe it is still legal to shoot someone that is trespassing on your property. Someone needs to bug the A-hole's car that made that decision and put it on the web so that everyone can track his movements. Then we'll see if he still feels there's "reasonable expectation of privacy". Un-F'ing believable.
Click to expand...
In my state they need to cross the threshold, that includes the garage, and they can't be invited or have to be refusing to leave (with limitations obviously). Every state is different. My car is garaged so if I find someone in there they will get shot. If they're in the driveway there isn't anything I can do.
 
dgingeri said:
This has NOTHING to do with privacy. This is for cases where the car is out in the open only. It does not cover cars in garages or behind fences. That is the whole basis of the ruling. Even a "no trespassing" sign is not enough. If someone can just walk up to the car unobstructed, they can legally put a tracker on it, but they cannot defeat any attempts at privacy on the property.

Also, you can't just shoot someone on your property, nor even in your house, unless they are threatening you. In your yard, even if threatened, you can't just shoot. Inside the house, you can shoot if they forced their way in, but aren't threatening you. If you invited them in, they have to be threatening in order for you to legally shoot. There are restrictions. It does have to be "affirmative defense." There is no defense if a kid runs into your yard to retrieve a ball and you shoot him, or a guy cuts the corner of your yard while walking along the sidewalk, or a meter reader walks up to the house to get a reading, or a couple Mormons walk up to your front door to tell you about God. There are many harmless points for someone to walk onto your property, and this include official police business.
Click to expand...

Man your way off. This has EVERYTHING to do with priviacy. I dont care if the car is in the open or in my garage. They dont have a right to track it without cause/ie search warrent. If they have cause then they can talk to a judge and get a warrent. I dont have issue with them fighting crime, but I have a issue with them trying to circumvent a key part of our judicial system.

And FYI in TX the castle law states that once an intruder is in your house they are a threat just by being inside the house. No other cause is needed to kill them. AND the castle law also extends to vehicles in TX. Put your hand in my car and i have the right to kill you for it.
 
Castle law in Florida is the same.
Come on my property (including my car), I can shoot to kill, and I do not have to retreat from you at all.

What happens when a cop is sticking a GPS on a car and the car owner thinks he is stealing the car and shoots and kills the cop? Many states have a Castle law and allow this.
 
MrValentine said:
Man your way off. This has EVERYTHING to do with priviacy. I dont care if the car is in the open or in my garage. They dont have a right to track it without cause/ie search warrent. If they have cause then they can talk to a judge and get a warrent. I dont have issue with them fighting crime, but I have a issue with them trying to circumvent a key part of our judicial system.

And FYI in TX the castle law states that once an intruder is in your house they are a threat just by being inside the house. No other cause is needed to kill them. AND the castle law also extends to vehicles in TX. Put your hand in my car and i have the right to kill you for it.
Click to expand...

It's NOT an invasion of privacy unless they breach a barrier designed to keep the public away. If any Joe Blow can walk up your driveway, then it's considered in the open. Keep in mind, this does not mean the cops can search your car without a warrant. Only that they can track where it goes. It's only slightly different than having a car tail you all day to see where you go.
 
Hop-Scotch said:
So there is no reasonable expectation of privacy if I say have a gated drive way on a few fenced in acres? I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

The police state is coming. Better stock up on ammo and reinforce your bomb shelter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top