FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The FBI is now in compliance with a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court regarding the unauthorized use of GPS tracking devices. In some cases, the FBI had to request permission from the courts to temporarily turn on the devices so they could be located and collected.

The agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices.
Click to expand...
 
WinSomeLoseNone said:
Good thing I was wearing my tin foil hat all these years.
Click to expand...
Haha...leave it to the FBI to prove the conspiracy theorists right.

This story is awesome, a small triumph against a police state.
When law enforcement keep drunks off the roads and tracks down thieves and murderers, I feel more safe.
When law enforcement secretly monitors whoever they want without a judge signing a warrant, I feel less safe.
 
Yup and make sure to vote according to what the media tells you so they can keep on screwing us!

But hey at least you will feel smart at the time!
 
about damn time. They can either follow you around in public or show probable cause to a judge and get a warrant.
 
So, if you find an FBI monitoring device on your vehicle, and you place it on someone else's car, or a pets collar... Who gets in trouble?
 
And then every so often a decision like this comes down and makes you feel like you are living in a constitutional republic again.
 
KarsusTG said:
So, if you find an FBI monitoring device on your vehicle, and you place it on someone else's car, or a pets collar... Who gets in trouble?
Click to expand...

It could be that all the people qualified to answer that question have been subject to extraordinary rendition. :(
 
fattypants said:
Haha...leave it to the FBI to prove the conspiracy theorists right.

This story is awesome, a small triumph against a police state.
When law enforcement keep drunks off the roads and tracks down thieves and murderers, I feel more safe.
When law enforcement secretly monitors whoever they want without a judge signing a warrant, I feel less safe.
Click to expand...

DUI checkpoints are garbage of the police state. Please tell me you don't support those.

In other news, a small victory.
 
Patman said:
DUI checkpoints are garbage of the police state. Please tell me you don't support those.
Click to expand...

Any sort of routine "checkpoint" system is the very definition of police state. Checkpoints should only be used in rare occasions and for very good reason. Stopping a bunch of innocent people in order to maybe find a criminal or two is not acceptable. If they had a specific dangerous person they were searching for with reason to believe they might be in the area, I'd be okay with it.

But a fishing expedition for random criminals is scary, scary stuff, and it's not far removed from walking down the street searching random people for drugs, unlicensed weapons, or whatever else.
 
NKDietrich said:
Any sort of routine "checkpoint" system is the very definition of police state. Checkpoints should only be used in rare occasions and for very good reason. Stopping a bunch of innocent people in order to maybe find a criminal or two is not acceptable. If they had a specific dangerous person they were searching for with reason to believe they might be in the area, I'd be okay with it.

But a fishing expedition for random criminals is scary, scary stuff, and it's not far removed from walking down the street searching random people for drugs, unlicensed weapons, or whatever else.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand why this is such a bad thing either. Why do drunk-driving checkpoints evolve to something worse? I imagine that train of thought ends with us having security cameras, monitored by the state, in our own homes, but I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
 
Kuraudo said:
I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand why this is such a bad thing either. Why do drunk-driving checkpoints evolve to something worse? I imagine that train of thought ends with us having security cameras, monitored by the state, in our own homes, but I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
Click to expand...
This?

Checkpoint for this, checkpoint for that, everywhere a checkpoint...point, point, point! = Police state (whether you like it or don't)

So...give an inch and later on you got this...
 
AnonymousUser said:

This?

Checkpoint for this, checkpoint for that, everywhere a checkpoint...point, point, point! = Police state (whether you like it or don't)

So...give an inch and later on you got this...
Click to expand...

I'm going to take the opposition side on this subject just to interject one point. Being a police officer I am fully for the DWI checkpoints. I would rather use a fishing net against the general public to grab some drunks rather than go to an accident down the road with a family of four dead because whoops i had one too many. If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why would a DWI checkpoint bother you?
 
TheSoldier said:
If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why would a [insert anything here] matter?
Click to expand...
Ding....ding...ding!!! We have a winner here.

Exactly, why don't I hand over my DNA, Finger prints, thought history, brain wave interpretation analysis, spending history, internet history, background check, rockets/guns/knifes/etc, credit report, three forms of ID, and adhere to a one year random breathalyzer check since I have nothing to hide.

Let me ask you this though. Why does everything to do with me (the people) giving up more and more of my (our) natural freedom (read:Not provided by the Gov) make the world a safer place? Think about it, seriously.

I mean after all a human being (Kingdom: Animalia) is an animal and if you restrict us too hard eventually we'll be fighting WW4 or WW5 with sticks and stones.
 
Yet the government which was made by and for the people is so far from that and the least transparent entity on the planet. Hey officer, sooner or later you may come to realize that some drunk driving victims were worth the sacrifice to not let our natural born freedoms be eroded away by the very same people doing the worst acts against humanity on this planet. Than again if you were/you're a solider I'd lean towards you think/thought you were protecting our freedom(s) from the bad guys. I laugh at you sir since the only one attacking my freedom is the person you were/are working for....lol.
 
AnonymousUser said:

This?

Checkpoint for this, checkpoint for that, everywhere a checkpoint...point, point, point! = Police state (whether you like it or don't)

So...give an inch and later on you got this...
Click to expand...

Driving is optional. The state gives you a license and lets you drive on public roads. If you don't want to get tested for alcohol, don't drive on the fucking road. I for one am more than happy for them to set up random breathaliser tests, not sure how it works over there, but out here you just pull over, blow in the device then keep moving. No invasion of privacy or anything like that. I'd rather be pulled over at a random breatho checkpoint than have a fucking head on with some random drunk. I know people who will happily drive when they're so pissed that they can barely walk straight and one of the few things stopping them is the fact they already lost their license once for doing it and are scared to get caught doing it again and lose their ability to commute to their job.
 
AnonymousUser said:
Everything on the planet is optional so your point is lacking. Safe drinking water is optional.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no, safe drinking water is essential.

Either way my point still stands. I'd rather get random breatho'd than run over by a drunk fucking moron.
 
TheSoldier said:
I'm going to take the opposition side on this subject just to interject one point. Being a police officer I am fully for the DWI checkpoints. I would rather use a fishing net against the general public to grab some drunks rather than go to an accident down the road with a family of four dead because whoops i had one too many. If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why would a DWI checkpoint bother you?
Click to expand...

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." is the most dangerous attitude I can think of with regards to personal freedom. You can use it to justify pretty much any government action at any level of intrusiveness.

The fact is, most people DO have something to hide. They just don't know it. If law enforcement were allowed to run rampant, they'd go around nailing people for trivial offenses and people would live in a constant state of fear that they might screw up and break some law they've never even heard of.

Especially state and local governments would LOVE to be able to just roam around fishing for reasons to fine people. State and local governments love using the cops as fundraisers rather than law enforcers.
 
Tudz said:
Driving is optional. The state gives you a license and lets you drive on public roads. If you don't want to get tested for alcohol, don't drive on the fucking road. I for one am more than happy for them to set up random breathaliser tests, not sure how it works over there, but out here you just pull over, blow in the device then keep moving. No invasion of privacy or anything like that. I'd rather be pulled over at a random breatho checkpoint than have a fucking head on with some random drunk. I know people who will happily drive when they're so pissed that they can barely walk straight and one of the few things stopping them is the fact they already lost their license once for doing it and are scared to get caught doing it again and lose their ability to commute to their job.
Click to expand...

So, how many times a day should they be able to stop an innocent person based on the mere POSSIBILITY that some individual in a public group MAY have committed an infraction. What if they stopped you every hour and a half, would that be cool?

DUI statistics are as overplayed as firearm statistics. .00001% of the public commits a crime, and the government's response is to infract everyone's natural rights. T

News flash. Your rights do not belong to the government, they are not given to you by the government, they are yours at birth.
 
I tend to be of the opinion "personal freedom" is and always has been a bit of an illusion. There's always limitations imposed on personal freedom, some of which are for the greater good and others which are in some way oppressive. History is an ever changing balance of varying degrees of freedom, oppression, struggles for power, struggles for independance as the people in power push the limits of what the people they govern are willing to put up with.

Yes, if it saves some lives on the roads, I'm more than happy to have my breath tested randomly for alcohol while driving. I'm not willing to sacrifice the life of my family for the freedom of not having to be worried about being stopped for 30 seconds now and then.

Start taking away freedoms people actually care about and you know what, they'll start caring.
 
Lith1um said:
DUI statistics are as overplayed as firearm statistics.
Click to expand...

It's just like anything. Point out where an innocent person was killed, and suddenly anyone who opposes your new laws, restrictions, and enforcement are just heartless monsters who care more about ethereal "freedom" than the lives of little Suzie who was killed by a drunk.

People don't like to hear it, but a few lives don't mean more than the collective freedom of our entire country.

Yet people still seem to take the attitude that any law and any restriction is fine as long as it saves a bunch of lives each year. The "If it saves even a single precious life..." argument is nothing more than a cheap play on peoples emotions.

To take it back to the topic of GPS tracking, since that's what the thread is about:

If we could stop the next 9/11 by allowing warrantless GPS tracking, wiretaps, and other monitoring, I'd rather be killed by a terrorist, and I'm not just saying that. I wouldn't want my life saved at the cost of the country becoming even worse than it already is. Just sitting here thinking about it, it's disgusting to think of some politicians trotting out my name, my death, as some justification for whatever Orwellian BS they want to pull next.

The idea that it's okay to infringe on someones privacy and freedom so long as you're trying to save lives is ridiculous and emotional.
 
Lith1um said:
News flash. Your rights do not belong to the government, they are not given to you by the government, they are yours at birth.
Click to expand...

So where in history is the occasion where people have had the right to do whatever they please? Your "rights" are entirely given to you by whoever is in charge. Fuck, even at birth your parents put you in a crib to stop you walking away in your freedom and killing yourself, they'll carry you away kicking and screaming to stop you hurting yourself. At any point in the life of anyone their rights are given to them by those in power at that given time, and those in power give those rights in order maintain power over you, when enough people feel their rights of the rights of others have been sufficiently diminished, people rise up and fight back (either successfully or not) in order to put new people into power who will in turn give them a new set of rights.
 
Tudz said:
Driving is optional. The state gives you a license and lets you drive on public roads. If you don't want to get tested for alcohol, don't drive on the fucking road. I for one am more than happy for them to set up random breathaliser tests, not sure how it works over there, but out here you just pull over, blow in the device then keep moving. No invasion of privacy or anything like that. I'd rather be pulled over at a random breatho checkpoint than have a fucking head on with some random drunk. I know people who will happily drive when they're so pissed that they can barely walk straight and one of the few things stopping them is the fact they already lost their license once for doing it and are scared to get caught doing it again and lose their ability to commute to their job.
Click to expand...

Those aren't your only two options, and DUI checkpoints obviously don't eliminate drunk driving, or people driving without licenses. You can actually utilize an old clause in the law and drive certain vehicles without any license at all.
Driving is not optional for a significant portion of the population, and the Supreme Court has agreed.

As for "If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why would a [insert anything here] matter?", how about "I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, now leave me the hell alone."
The "nothing to hide" search attitude is ignorant and dangerous at best, and at worst enabled a number of fascists to persecute and eradicate scores of people.
I don't want us to take any pages from Hermann's playbook, thanks.
 
NKDietrich said:
Yet people still seem to take the attitude that any law and any restriction is fine as long as it saves a bunch of lives each year. The "If it saves even a single precious life..." argument is nothing more than a cheap play on peoples emotions.
Click to expand...
And people who think everyone should be completely and utterly free use hyperboles like "any law and any restriction". I specifically said random breath checks, yes, I think that's an acceptable law and an acceptable restriction. That hardly means I'm willing to accept "any law and any restriction".

People in power know this, they know they can limit and restrict people up to a certain point. Uprisings aren't made from meaningless limitations and restrictions like that, they're made from truly oppressive ones like slavery, taxes that drive people to ruin, an infrastructure that has benefit only for those in power and oppression for those without.
 
LightningCrash said:
Those aren't your only two options, and DUI checkpoints obviously don't eliminate drunk driving, or people driving without licenses. You can actually utilize an old clause in the law and drive certain vehicles without any license at all.
Click to expand...
Don't eliminate, but certainly reduce it. One guy I know stopped driving without a license after they'd fined him so heavily he had little choice. And as I mentioned before, I know other people who don't drink drive for the sole reason they can't afford to lose their license.

I'm in agreement with you on thinking that "If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why would a [insert anything here] matter?" is a bad mentality. Though you do also have a certain degree of ""If you have nothing to hide or nothing wrong than why should I care?". Honestly, even if you don't agree with DUI checkpoints, what do you expect people to do about it, what are YOU doing about it? Have you taken any action to fight against it? I'm guessing all the people arguing against it have not done ANYTHING about it. People will only stand against things they deem important or actions they feel are oppressive.
 
Tudz said:
And people who think everyone should be completely and utterly free use hyperboles like "any law and any restriction". I specifically said random breath checks, yes, I think that's an acceptable law and an acceptable restriction. That hardly means I'm willing to accept "any law and any restriction".

People in power know this, they know they can limit and restrict people up to a certain point. Uprisings aren't made from meaningless limitations and restrictions like that, they're made from truly oppressive ones like slavery, taxes that drive people to ruin, an infrastructure that has benefit only for those in power and oppression for those without.
Click to expand...

I don't mean that people are willing to give up every freedom on an individual level. Certainly everyone has their own ideas of what freedoms are acceptable to give up. The fact that we disagree about sobriety checkpoints proves that. But I think we'd both agree on other restrictions that are perfectly reasonable.

But on a wide-scale level, the argument is always there, and it is always used. "You give us this new law enforcement power and we can save lives, and our country, think of the children!"

And by and large, when you frame it that way, at least half of the population are going to be willing to give up any single freedom. The American populous (as a whole, not as individuals) are all too willing to throw away every last freedom they have as long as it is done slowly over time to ease the "sticker shock."
 
Tudz said:
Ummm, no, safe drinking water is essential.

Either way my point still stands. I'd rather get random breatho'd than run over by a drunk fucking moron.
Click to expand...

What about the cell phone driver or soccer mom dealing with noisy kids in the back? Do we have checkpoints for those scenarios?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top