Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/thre

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Denny Crane, Sep 22, 2010.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 2 of 2
  1. HailBlazers

    HailBlazers RipCity

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    19,994
    Likes Received:
    17,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    PDX
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Land of the free..... as long as you don't leave your house?
     
    HailBlazers, Sep 23, 2010
    #21
  2. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    The principle doesn't bother you? Would you be okay with law enforcement attaching an information-recording device to your shoe without you noticing? A shoe, like your car, is just a possession you use...if you use it on public streets, etc, isn't it fair game also?
     
    Minstrel, Sep 23, 2010
    #22
  3. Paxil

    Paxil Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Software engineer
    Location:
    Hillsboro
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Personally no... I really don't have a problem with it. Hide GPSs in gum on the street I don't care. If I am being targeted by something like that it is because I a suspected of something quite a bit more serious than jaywalking... and if they didn't have a valid reason to suspect something specific *before* they put the GPS on me... than I am pretty sure they can't use the information anyway.
     
    Paxil, Sep 23, 2010
    #23
  4. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    A warrant is usually what determines whether they have "valid reason to suspect something specific." If they can do this without a warrant, it means they don't need that valid reason.
     
    Minstrel, Sep 23, 2010
    #24
  5. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    If you buy a car, you are making a contract with the auto maker. Specifically something like onStar or other service related features the car might have.

    If you are being watched on the street by cameras, it is private businesses that put those up for security reasons. It's not big brother; the camera put up by the liquor store owner is not part of the same monitoring system as the camera put up by the laundromat.

    This is why there's even a huge stink about the police putting up cameras at stoplights.
     
    Denny Crane, Sep 23, 2010
    #25
  6. Paxil

    Paxil Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Software engineer
    Location:
    Hillsboro
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Warrant's aren't used to search cars pulled over from traffic violations are they? We have an ammendment in the Constitution against unreasonable search and seasure... I am sure it would apply to placement of GPS devices too.
     
    Paxil, Sep 23, 2010
    #26
  7. maxiep

    maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,303
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Merchant Banker
    Location:
    Denver, CO & Lake Oswego, OR
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    This one?

    [​IMG]

    A lot of things now make sense.
     
    maxiep, Sep 23, 2010
    #27
  8. bodyman5001

    bodyman5001 Genius

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    auto collision technician
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Ok, assume you own a large closed garage and you have 10 vehicles in it. One of which has a GPS device in it that police installed without a warrant.

    You load that vehicle into a closed car hauler INSIDE your own garage where nobody can see you do this.

    You drive said car hauler all over the country committing tons of crimes without ever taking the car with the GPS out of the hauler for the public to see.

    Nobody sees you commit these crimes, but the police go over the GPS data and retrace your steps and find evidence that they would have never found if they didn't have the GPS data.

    That should be allowed by the court, really?
     
    bodyman5001, Sep 25, 2010
    #28
  9. bodyman5001

    bodyman5001 Genius

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    auto collision technician
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Oh I forgot, they want to make sure that GPS jammers are illegal. I mean, the government can have them but they don't want us to because it will mess up cell phones and planes might crash and some other bullshit might happen.
     
    bodyman5001, Sep 25, 2010
    #29
  10. Paxil

    Paxil Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Software engineer
    Location:
    Hillsboro
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    You really want people jamming you car navigation device?
     
    Paxil, Sep 25, 2010
    #30
  11. Paxil

    Paxil Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Software engineer
    Location:
    Hillsboro
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    You do know many other countries laugh at our insistence to protect criminals. We go out of our way to discourage police from certain activities but in other countries they use any evidence and discipline the police. Makes more sense to me.

    As far as it being used... GPS doesn't say who was in the car... it isn't proof of that... it would have to be combined with other evidence to put a particular person in the car.
     
    Paxil, Sep 25, 2010
    #31
  12. bodyman5001

    bodyman5001 Genius

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    auto collision technician
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    You do know that I personally laugh at people who still live in this country yet don't value the freedoms that we have (once had). I also laugh at other countries that laugh at us. I laugh because most of their citizens would rather live here.

    You just made another great point for ME. The GPS doesn't say who was in the car. The cops could steal the car at night and drive it around planting drugs in places. I am sure they wouldn't though, cops never do anything wrong.
     
    bodyman5001, Sep 25, 2010
    #32
  13. bodyman5001

    bodyman5001 Genius

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    auto collision technician
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Yes, I really do. I just don't have a navigation device unless you count my brain. If I want to go somewhere I find out the address and if I don't know where it is I look it up on a map and then drive directly to it like people used to do before technology rendered thought useless.
     
    bodyman5001, Sep 25, 2010
    #33
  14. MrJayremmie

    MrJayremmie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,438
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    Fuck that shit.
     
    MrJayremmie, Sep 25, 2010
    #34
  15. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    China kills people for speaking out against the government.

    The Congo government rapes and murders it's own people just to keep them afraid of authority.

    That shit make sense to you also?
     
    MARIS61, Sep 25, 2010
    #35
  16. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

    When Obama loses, we all win.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...story/2012-01-23/supreme-court-GPS/52754354/1

    Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking

    Civil libertarians and defense lawyers praised the ruling in United States v. Jones. The "Fourth Amendment must continue to protect against government intrusions even in the face of modern technological surveillance tools," said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which was among the groups that sided with Jones. The Justice Department, which had appealed a lower court's decision requiring a warrant for GPS tracking, had no public response to the decision.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the main opinion for the court, said "the government's physical intrusion on the Jeep" to obtain information constitutes a search. He based his decision on the original roots of Fourth Amendment protection for property against government intrusions. Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.
     
    Denny Crane, Jan 2, 2013
    #36
    HailBlazers likes this.
  17. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    jlprk, Jan 3, 2013
    #37
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page