U.S. Court Rules That Government Can Secretly Track You With GPS

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

Axx wrote on 2010-08-25 23:50

Quote from Chillax;137153:
Standalone information on where you are is not enough to warrant an arrest. An out-of-control government will arrest you regardless of the laws set into place, so I don't see where you're going with this in regard to the GPS tracking.

??? Because you're handing over more information to the government? [linkity] Because you're saying that the government has the right to track whoever it pleases because it can? Just because this one facet of surveillance isn't enough to get you arrested (yet), doesn't mean it's not a bad idea and that it doesn't violate a few rights. Yes, a rampantly tyrannical government will screw you no matter what, but this is about avoiding letting the government reach that level of power. At least, I think the American government isn't a rampantly tyrannical one yet.
Ninjam wrote on 2010-08-25 23:57

Sounds fail, im sure some idiot police will use this to track stupid things like arresting someone for going to a strip club, or just TELLING everyone _____ went to a strip club. It could end up as dinner talk at the table for the family, "Oh, and the guy i was tracking went to a STRIP JOINT yesterday, we will be laughing at that one for weeks, mabey even bring it up in court to bring the jury to our side, say he was a illegal child stripclub or something"

Other than that, i just dont wana go around knowing the goverment could be watching me at any time, it would make me way to paranoid, and im already overly paranoid as it is.
Tarvos wrote on 2010-08-26 00:10

Cool, now the govt. will know when I pull up to a truck stop to go to the bathroom. I honestly don't care if police track me really.

Quote from Chillax:
Standalone information on where you are is usually not enough to warrant an arrest. An out-of-control government will arrest you regardless of the laws set into place, so I don't see where you're going with this in regard to the GPS tracking.

I'd have to agree with this.

Quote from Ninjam;137164:
Sounds fail, im sure some idiot police will use this to track stupid things like arresting someone for going to a strip club, or just TELLING everyone _____ went to a strip club. It could end up as dinner talk at the table for the family, "Oh, and the guy i was tracking went to a STRIP JOINT yesterday, we will be laughing at that one for weeks, mabey even bring it up in court to bring the jury to our side, say he was a illegal child stripclub or something"

Even if they talk at a dinner table, if someone did go to a strip club that's their decision, and nothing wrong with it if they're of the legal age. I honestly don't know why anyone would care if people they don't know were talking about them. So they're the laughing stock of a dinner table, big deal. Sadly people do judge if they have different tastes, but that's a whole other thing... The court thing could be somewhat of a concern, but, bias like that should be left at the door, and unless real evidence for crimes or whatever is given, it will have no bearing on the case. (btw, I may sound "hostile" the way this is typed, but I assure you, I'm not, I'm just voicing an opinion...)
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2010-08-26 00:10

it's not like the FBI/CIA/secret agemts can be seen in public anyways
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-08-26 00:23

Quote from Chillax;137153:
Standalone information on where you are is usually not enough to warrant an arrest. An out-of-control government will arrest you regardless of the laws set into place, so I don't see where you're going with this in regard to the GPS tracking.

I think the point is that we are supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" whereas this new arbitrary tracking thing will make us in a way, "guilty until proven innocent".
Chillax wrote on 2010-08-26 00:44

??? Because you're handing over more information to the government? [linkity] Because you're saying that the government has the right to track whoever it pleases because it can? Just because this one facet of surveillance isn't enough to get you arrested (yet), doesn't mean it's not a bad idea and that it doesn't violate a few rights. Yes, a rampantly tyrannical government will screw you no matter what, but this is about avoiding letting the government reach that level of power. At least, I think the American government isn't a rampantly tyrannical one yet.

A person generally travels from public place to public place with a car. If you didn't want your car to be seen or tracked, you would take a side road and park in a location farther and more secluded than the area you would want to go to. As cars have distinct license plates, it's not hard for a policeman to ask an unknowing bystander if he/she saw the license plate and for other information, which is probably more information than the policeman will ever get from this GPS tracking device, which is why I'm still not convinced that this is an entirely bad thing. Would it be any different if a policeman decided to track you by foot or by police car?

I would suggest not linking me to those sites because they constantly talk about opening letters and giving away profile information, but not one says anything about tracking your car, which is not the same as tracking your person.

I think the point is that we are supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" whereas this new arbitrary tracking thing will make us in a way, "guilty until proven innocent".

My reasoning is provided above as a response to Axx's post. Innocent until proven guilty refers to a trial, but if you can't be arrested on the GPS information alone, you won't be face-to-face with a judge anytime soon.
Axx wrote on 2010-08-26 01:06

Quote from Chillax;137217:
A person generally travels from public place to public place with a car. If you didn't want your car to be seen or tracked, you would take a side road and park in a location farther and more secluded than the area you would want to go to. As cars have distinct license plates, it's not hard for a policeman to ask an unknowing bystander if he/she saw the license plate and for other information, which is probably more information than the policeman will ever get from this GPS tracking device, which is why I'm still not convinced that this is an entirely bad thing. Would it be any different if a policeman decided to track you by foot or by police car?

Because a policeman/agent/whoever can't legally track you without a warrant (although I believe they've already got exceptions for 'probable cause'). I'm all for it if they have a warrant in the first place. And yes, car tracking isn't 100% same as person tracking, but it's along the same path, which is the point I'm making in the first place. They can, without you knowing, legally and with no explanation needed to you, monitor you. You seem to think this isn't such a bad thing, I disagree. I think it has a strong parallel with those for/against monitoring how you use your internet...but I'm getting off topic.

The sites I linked to talked about why "If you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about" is a horrible position to argue, they don't deal specifically with GPS car tracking.

And I disagree, "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to all aspects of being an American citizen, it's not just 'applicable at trial'.
Chillax wrote on 2010-08-26 17:54

Because a policeman/agent/whoever can't legally track you without a warrant (although I believe they've already got exceptions for 'probable cause'). I'm all for it if they have a warrant in the first place. And yes, car tracking isn't 100% same as person tracking, but it's along the same path, which is the point I'm making in the first place. They can, without you knowing, legally and with no explanation needed to you, monitor you. You seem to think this isn't such a bad thing, I disagree. I think it has a strong parallel with those for/against monitoring how you use your internet...but I'm getting off topic.

A policeman can still tail you as a private citizen and I think detectives can do the same without a warrant. Yes, I don't think the GPS tracking device is such a bad thing, since getting a warrant can take a while to obtain in some situations. I can't find a reasonable scenario that would trigger me to fear having a GPS tracking device being placed on my car. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on such a scenario?

The sites I linked to talked about why "If you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about" is a horrible position to argue, they don't deal specifically with GPS car tracking.

They all talk about information that can be used as proof to arrest someone, but they don't discuss information that isn't enough to do so. The article is more about police blunders than it is about how the methods used to gather information about the suspect proved to be detrimental.

And I disagree, "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to all aspects of being an American citizen, it's not just 'applicable at trial'.

That applies in theory, but how many times is that applicable in real life? It is up to you to provide an alibi for a situation. If your boss blames you of causing a problem, it is up to you to prove your innocence, or you could get fired.

« First ‹ Prev 1 2