State OK's use of secret GPS tracking devices (in cars)

For the first time, the state's (Maryland) highest court ruled today that the state Declaration of Rights allows police to break into a suspect’s car to secretly install GPS tracking devices, provided they have a warrant before they act.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/states_top_cour.html


crazy stuff

They make these that use a magnet to stick to the underside of a car and allows police to track a vehicles locations. And they have been used before legally.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm not going to be anywhere I shouldn't be.

Do they make a device that can block GPS signals like cell phones? If so, I bet this will be useless in a few months

it's all just radio frequencies so you find the right band and just have an emitter just block it out.

Lojack already does this

Simple solution. Blow up car.

And your house too incase they have one there.

Brandon wrote:

I don't have a problem with it. I'm not going to be anywhere I shouldn't be.

I presume then that you wouldn't have a problem with your phone calls, emails, and text messages being monitored? You're not talking about anything you shouldn't be, right? And if the police want to search your car, home, or person at any given time, that's okay too, since you're not carrying contraband anyway?

This is ****. Like one of the comments on the article said, if the police already know the suspect, what they drive, and where they park it, they should stake them out like any other time. Right now their example is the "war on drugs." What would stop them from expanding it? If you have a gun, your car must have a GPS. Random GPS placements to try to find people going to bars then driving, or running red lights, or speeding, or...

It sets a precident for them to eventually have a GPS mandated in EVERY vehicle, with disabling it being a felony. But that's okay, since you're not going anywhere you're not "supposed to" (who determines where you're "allowed" to go??), it's fine if Uncle Sam knows your every move.

Brandon wrote:

I don't have a problem with it. I'm not going to be anywhere I shouldn't be.

I presume then that you wouldn't have a problem with your phone calls, emails, and text messages being monitored? You're not talking about anything you shouldn't be, right? And if the police want to search your car, home, or person at any given time, that's okay too, since you're not carrying contraband anyway?

This is ****. Like one of the comments on the article said, if the police already know the suspect, what they drive, and where they park it, they should stake them out like any other time. Right now their example is the "war on drugs." What would stop them from expanding it? If you have a gun, your car must have a GPS. Random GPS placements to try to find people going to bars then driving, or running red lights, or speeding, or...

It sets a precident for them to eventually have a GPS mandated in EVERY vehicle, with disabling it being a felony. But that's okay, since you're not going anywhere you're not "supposed to" (who determines where you're "allowed" to go??), it's fine if Uncle Sam knows your every move.

hell one insurance company offers discounts for having their gps unit installed monitors , it monitors your driving habits and how you drive

zanson wrote:

it's all just radio frequencies so you find the right band and just have an emitter just block it out.

This.

Research "Electronic Counter Measures" (ECM). Its what we have installed on our vehicles in Iraq and Afghan to prevent radio controlled IEDs from being detonated. Pretty cool stuff, and can technically be adapted for any frequency range.

alkatmsu wrote:

This is ****. Like one of the comments on the article said, if the police already know the suspect, what they drive, and where they park it, they should stake them out like any other time.

Sure they could. But the cost of employing multiple shifts of law enforcement personnel just to stake out one person for a few days is staggering. Especially when this little guy just transmits their locations back to the station, enabling a SINGLE officer to "stake out" multiple suspects at once.

Bobby Lee wrote:

alkatmsu wrote: This is ****. Like one of the comments on the article said, if the police already know the suspect, what they drive, and where they park it, they should stake them out like any other time. Sure they could. But the cost of employing multiple shifts of law enforcement personnel just to stake out one person for a few days is staggering. Especially when this little guy just transmits their locations back to the station, enabling a SINGLE officer to "stake out" multiple suspects at once.

That's my point. It makes it so easy to track people, it'd only be a matter of time before it gets expanded, and eventually every vehicle will be tracked and fed into some computer program to determine who's breaking speed laws etc. A single officer? Try none at all... GPS sends data to the computer, computer figures out who's doing something undesirable, sends that info to an automated ticket printing/mailing system like speed cameras use...

Hate to break it to you, but they are already doing a ton of stuff to track you and it's not going to go away. Red light cameras watch for people running red lights, and they are becoming more and more common. Random speed cameras are going to be installed soon (not sure if they are in use here yet, but I know they are VERY common in Europe). Some freeways have tolls that track the time from booth to booth to see if you're speeding, don't be surprised if that gets expanded to more highways. If you get 2 DUIs in most states you have to get a breathalyzer in your car -- hard to argue that isn't a win-win.

These are all things to make our country safer while using less man power (AND HOPEFULLY cutting tax dollars). Would you rather pay a team of cops to set up a stakeout or rotating tail on 1 guy or simply get a warrant and have a single cop track 20 guys?

my friend had a breatlyzer in his car and he would just get other people to blow in it for him, so it didnt accomplish anything but make it a game to find someone to blow to start his car.

^^^ where there's a will there's a way. Just like people with a locator in their car will borrow someone else's

alkatmsu wrote:

That's my point. It makes it so easy to track people, it'd only be a matter of time before it gets expanded, and eventually every vehicle will be tracked and fed into some computer program to determine who's breaking speed laws etc. A single officer? Try none at all... GPS sends data to the computer, computer figures out who's doing something undesirable, sends that info to an automated ticket printing/mailing system like speed cameras use...

Ok... that is a very valid point. The system could easily be adapted to perform that function. However, if you're breaking the law... you're breaking the law. What difference does it make whether you're "caught" by a camera, GPS, or fellow citizen?

Quote:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it... does it still make a sound?

If someone blows through a red light, and there isn't a police officer there to catch them... are they still committing a crime?

See what I did there? A system like that would simply keep honest people honest, and punish those that break the law regardless of whose watching.

If I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen, the gov't has NO right to track me or what I'm doing. If they want to put those things on people on parole, sex offender lists, etc, that's one thing. But to be able to put them on people suspected of a crime (the definition of crime can be whatever they want mind you, just label someone a 'security threat' and they can do whatever they want with your privacy) is where I have a problem. It opens things up to be abused.

justinwebb wrote:

my friend had a breatlyzer in his car and he would just get other people to blow in it for him, so it didnt accomplish anything but make it a game to find someone to blow to start his car.

WOW! seriously...people would actually do that for him? What does he say "Hey I'm drunk as **** and I can't drive my car,could you blow into this to give me the opportunity to drive and possibly kill myself,or others."

Those interlocked breathalizers will NOT start the car with ANY alchohol on your breath ...
We had a guy that would inflate balloons then undo them to start his car

justinwebb wrote:

my friend had a breatlyzer in his car and he would just get other people to blow in it for him, so it didnt accomplish anything but make it a game to find someone to blow to start his car.

and hopefully you never did unless you think its worth a year in jail, thousands of dollars in fines and the loss of your drivers license.

Plus with him it would be up to another year in jail, they would revoke his drivers license for a year and revoke time on his DUI.

alkatmsu wrote:

It opens things up to be abused.

Ohhhh... ok. So it takes an automated ticket system in order for things to be abused? Because computer systems have less professional discretion than your stereotypical law enforcement agency, right? If anything, it enables a system with LESS abuse.

justinwebb wrote:

my friend had a breatlyzer in his car and he would just get other people to blow in it for him, so it didnt accomplish anything but make it a game to find someone to blow to start his car.

Some systems take a picture of the blower and take another picture at a random time to eliminate what you just said.

People already buy cars with tracking systems for cops....On Star

Bobby Lee wrote:

alkatmsu wrote: It opens things up to be abused. Ohhhh... ok. So it takes an automated ticket system in order for things to be abused? Because computer systems have less professional discretion than your stereotypical law enforcement agency, right? If anything, it enables a system with LESS abuse.

No, it takes the authorities having the right to track people "suspected" of a crime. It's not much of a stretch to say that anyone with a car can automatically be "suspected" of speeding, so better put a tracker on EVERY vehicle. An automated system can't know that you were speeding because you were going downhill, had your wife in labor in the backseat, were trying to pass a dangerous vehicle, etc. You'd just get your ticket and have no appeal, because no one saw anything, in person or on camera. All the computer would know is that you were 1 mph over the limit.

It's not the system that's evil, it's what it can be used for.

^^^
There are people who freak out over little things. Kinda like the people who cried over the "death panels" in Obama's healthcare proposal. You seem to be one of these people.

No matter what facts are presented you're going to default to some irrational fear that's not based on facts.

PwrRngr wrote:

People already buy cars with tracking systems for cops....On Star

I was about to bring that up. I see it in the positive light that they can find my car if stolen.

Plus I can get the doors unlocked remotely and vehicle diagnostics reports by email.

Where was this Maryland or Massachusetts?

I'm pretty conservative. But to a point this is the same as being tailed by three different cars and having people in disguise following you? This is the equivalent technology of people tailing someone, technology is progressing.

I didn't know that losing our rights a bit at a time was an "irrational fear," but if that's what you want to believe...

When the U.S. ends up like Britain with surveillance cameras on every block, or worse, maybe then you'll wake up. But not likely, since it'll be done one "little thing" at a time as not to cause a stir. Besides, it's for our protection, right?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin

alkatmsu wrote:

I didn't know that losing our rights a bit at a time was an "irrational fear," but if that's what you want to believe... When the U.S. ends up like Britain with surveillance cameras on every block, or worse, maybe then you'll wake up. But not likely, since it'll be done one "little thing" at a time as not to cause a stir. Besides, it's for our protection, right? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin

Taking away our rights....debatable. You bring up an interesting point about camera's like in Britain. Tell me, what right is being infringed by the state putting up traffic cameras? I don't want a debate on they need cops to watch that stuff. Tell me which right is infringed by traffic cameras.

PwrRngr wrote:

alkatmsu wrote: I didn't know that losing our rights a bit at a time was an "irrational fear," but if that's what you want to believe... When the U.S. ends up like Britain with surveillance cameras on every block, or worse, maybe then you'll wake up. But not likely, since it'll be done one "little thing" at a time as not to cause a stir. Besides, it's for our protection, right? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin Taking away our rights....debatable. You bring up an interesting point about camera's like in Britain. Tell me, what right is being infringed by the state putting up traffic cameras? I don't want a debate on they need cops to watch that stuff. Tell me which right is infringed by traffic cameras.

And furthermore, explain why having cameras in a PUBLIC place is a bad thing? If you don't want to be seen, you shouldn't be in public places anyways. Lastly, you don't honestly think someone sits there and watches them all do you?

corvettecrazy wrote:

PwrRngr wrote: alkatmsu wrote: I didn't know that losing our rights a bit at a time was an "irrational fear," but if that's what you want to believe... When the U.S. ends up like Britain with surveillance cameras on every block, or worse, maybe then you'll wake up. But not likely, since it'll be done one "little thing" at a time as not to cause a stir. Besides, it's for our protection, right? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin Taking away our rights....debatable. You bring up an interesting point about camera's like in Britain. Tell me, what right is being infringed by the state putting up traffic cameras? I don't want a debate on they need cops to watch that stuff. Tell me which right is infringed by traffic cameras. And furthermore, explain why having cameras in a PUBLIC place is a bad thing? If you don't want to be seen, you shouldn't be in public places anyways. Lastly, you don't honestly think someone sits there and watches them all do you?

Traffic cameras are one thing. The autobahn has them to watch for accidents and get first responders out within minutes. That's a good thing. If you get a speeding ticket with a camera, you at least have a chance to prove innocence, such as if you weren't driving the vehicle, etc. A GPS would have no imagery, just speed/direction data.

Public cameras are another. Would you be okay with someone walking around taking your picture against your will? As for someone sitting there watching... ever heard of facial recognition software? Unless you're going to be wearing sunglasses and a hat every time you go out, it wouldn't take much for the computers to be able to recognize you and know your every move.

The right this violates?

The Fourth Amendment wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Quote:

Noun * S: (n) search, hunt, hunting (the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something or someone) * S: (n) search (an investigation seeking answers) "a thorough search of the ledgers revealed nothing"; "the outcome justified the search" * S: (n) search, lookup (an operation that determines whether one or more of a set of items has a specified property) "they wrote a program to do a table lookup" * S: (n) search (the examination of alternative hypotheses) "his search for a move that would avoid checkmate was unsuccessful" * S: (n) search (boarding and inspecting a ship on the high seas) "right of search" Verb * S: (v) search, seek, look for (try to locate or discover, or try to establish the existence of) "The police are searching for clues"; "They are searching for the missing man in the entire county" * S: (v) search, look (search or seek) "We looked all day and finally found the child in the forest"; "Look elsewhere for the perfect gift!" * S: (v) research, search, explore (inquire into) "the students had to research the history of the Second World War for their history project"; "He searched for information on his relatives on the web"; "Scientists are exploring the nature of consciousness" * S: (v) search (subject to a search) "The police searched the suspect"; "We searched the whole house for the missing keys"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=search

Note that only two out of nine definitions have any physical meaning. Being recorded and tracked is the same as being searched, and if I'm being tracked and videoed, I'm effectively being searched without a cause or warrant.

alkatmsu wrote:

Would you be okay with someone walking around taking your picture against your will?

Happens to celebrities all the time. There's nothing they can do about being photographed by the paparazzi while in public places.

alkatmsu wrote:

Quote: * S: (v) search (subject to a search) "The police searched the suspect"; "We searched the whole house for the missing keys"

There is a little thing we like to call context. The definition quoted above is the only one of those nine that fits the context in which this Amendment...

The Fourth Amendment wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

... was written. Therefore, being recorded and tracked is not the same as having your person or property searched.

We track ya'll with Google Earth...WHAT NOW

Bobby Lee wrote:

alkatmsu wrote: Would you be okay with someone walking around taking your picture against your will? Happens to celebrities all the time. There's nothing they can do about being photographed by the paparazzi while in public places. alkatmsu wrote: Quote: * S: (v) search (subject to a search) "The police searched the suspect"; "We searched the whole house for the missing keys" There is a little thing we like to call context. The definition quoted above is the only one of those nine that fits the context in which this Amendment... The Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... was written. Therefore, being recorded and tracked is not the same as having your person or property searched.

Paparazzi is one thing. If you went to walmart or the mall, and someone was following you taking your picture every few moments, you wouldn't confront them and ask them to stop?

How do you know what context was meant? When that was written, there was no such thing as video/gps surveillance. I surely consider being secure in my person to mean I'm not going to be watched by big brother every time I step outside the front door.

alkatmsu wrote:

Paparazzi is one thing. If you went to walmart or the mall, and someone was following you taking your picture every few moments, you wouldn't confront them and ask them to stop?

Absolutely I would. However, there's nothing stopping them from continuing to do so. That's my point, there aren't laws establishing this to be wrong in any way.

alkatmsu wrote:

How do you know what context was meant? When that was written, there was no such thing as video/gps surveillance. I surely consider being secure in my person to mean I'm not going to be watched by big brother every time I step outside the front door.

You're correct, cameras and GPS weren't even notional ideas at the time that the Fourth Amendment was written. But the idea of surveillance has been performed for centuries. Your useage of the term "big brother" is actually quite comical. A big brother as a sibling, in most societies, is that of a protector or over-seer. One that looks out for the younger, weaker kids of the family. Are you implying that the government should look after us in that manner?

alkatmsu wrote:

If you went to walmart or the mall, and someone was following you taking your picture every few moments, you wouldn't confront them and ask them to stop?

You need to realize that what people want and what's legal are two seperate things there.

I had a landlord and we had MAJOR issues with her. My little brother was playing basketball outside. She stood on the property line and took pictures of him. I called the cops just to report it and you know what they said?

Was she on the property? Since she wasn't on the property and he was in a public place she wasn't doing anything illegal. People can take pictures of you in your own yard if they want and it's 100% legal. The cop said it was all legal unless you were inside the house and she was taking picture of you inside.

So yes, if someone was in Walmart taking pictures of me I would ask them to stop. But, they are not doing anything illegal if they don't stop. If it was illegal, you wouldn't have peopleofwalmart dot com.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it should be allowed. I imagine if someone was following you around blatantly taking your picture, you could get them on harassment or something.

Bobby, I plainly said I do NOT want to be watched when I leave the house. I know there's security cameras in stores, banks, etc, and if I had a problem with those PRIVATELY OWNED cameras, I can avoid those places. But when the gov't decides it wants to put a GPS in my car, cameras above every sidewalk, park bench, etc, the line is crossed.

You can always move to Canada.

alkatmsu wrote:

.....the line is crossed.

What line is this? Obviously it's a line that you've made up. There is a legal system in place to establish "real lines" that matter. I suggest you take your case to them.

Example, the city government established a no smoking in public places law. This means people can not smoke inside ANY build. Even if the it's a private business and the business owner allows it. The city has taken away the property rights of the owner and forced him to not allow smoking. I believe this is crossing the line but the legal systems doesn't. In the end, it's not crossing the line b/c the legal system sets the lines and not me.

Bobby Lee wrote:

alkatmsu wrote: Paparazzi is one thing. If you went to walmart or the mall, and someone was following you taking your picture every few moments, you wouldn't confront them and ask them to stop? Absolutely I would. However, there's nothing stopping them from continuing to do so.

Uhhh....if they continue to do so after I've insisted they stop, there will absolutely be something stopping them....

.....they could trip that shutter all they wanted, but all they'd be doing would be a poor man's colonoscopy.....