Supreme Court seems troubled by police GPS tracking

[The Northerner]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed concerns about the police secretly putting GPS devices on vehicles to track suspects' movements, comparing it to the Big Brother police state of the novel "1984."

If the Obama administration wins its case to allow vehicles to be tracked by global position system, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen."

A government win would "suddenly produce what sounds like 1984," Breyer said in a reference to the famous George Orwell novel of 1949 that depicted pervasive government surveillance.

In the high court's first consideration of the issue in fighting crime, the justices questioned whether police tracking with GPS devices would invade citizens' basic constitutional privacy rights.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-usa-police-gps-idUSTRE7A767520111108

[Dawson Leery]

1. k/r

[Poll_Blind]

2. Remember, folks, at some point Bush's torch that Obama kept lit will be passed to a Repuke.

I've heard of the Kings New Clothes but I've never seen so many people so willing to loop a noose around their own necks and call it fashion.

PB

[w4rma]

3. Note: The Justices that Obama nominated seem to have great reservations.

This reflects well on Obama.

[No Elephants]

20. Actually, it reflects well on the Justices and on all Democrats who hold to principles, even if

holding to principles may adversely affect a Democratic President.

Most of all, it reflects very well on the Framers, who insulated federal judges from losing their jobs over the judicial decisions they may make.

Possibly the most liberal Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ever was nominated by Eisenhower--and Eisenhower, in a moment of candor, said that that nomination was the biggest mistake of his entire 8 years in office--not allowing both the MIC and Josephy McCarthy to overtake him, but nominating a Justice who turned out to be liberal.

We really have no idea at all how the attitude of the Justices (as best as we can discern it) reflects on Obama. We have a muich better idea of how the positions the Obama administration takes in court reflect on Obama. Ditto the tactics.

And, we have yet to see how any of the Justices will actually vote on this case.

[midnight]

4. If this bothers them then the latest FBI expanded powers should too....

[freshwest]

5. Isn't all of this (snort) "legal" under the Patriot Act? What's going on under the SCOTUS' robes now...

[valerief]

6. So SCOTUS and the other .01% have no way to exempt themselves from the surveillance?

Otherwise, why would they care about anyone's rights? They haven't so far.

[No Elephants]

22. The SCOTUS has struck down several provisions of the Patriot Act.

I am no fan of this SCOTUS, or of its predecessor (to put it mildly), but I have to give credit where I feel it is due. And that is one place it is due, IMO.

[backtoblue]

7. k and r

[msongs]

8. Bush does it = bad, Obama does it = good. perpetuating the bush agenda nt

[nineteen50]

9. At least

I know the police cause you trouble
They cause trouble everywhere
But when you die and_ go to Heaven
You'll find no policemen there

R.I.P Woody Guthrie

[Xtraneous]

10. Aren't carowners who buy OnStar voluntarily accepting such access?

As with most luxury car options this may become standard- or even hidden- in every new car soon. Visible tracking devices will soon become a thing of the past anyway. Such a ruling doesn't deal with the near future. Either way this goes is not a win.

[nineteen50]

11. And that makes it o.k.?

[TheMadMonk]

15. Can't read below the fold heh? No it does NOT make it O.K.

The poster was indicating that car owners are getting this sort of thing forced upon them as an integral part of the bloated ever increasing feature set of new motor vehicles.

A feature which bypasses constitutional protections with an EULA (end user lisence agreement) giving the motor vehicle manufacturer permission to track your movements (past and present) in order to "provide a better end user experience". Among other things to share with: selected partners, allowing them to provide "targeted advertising"; insurers, allowing them more ammunition with which to shoot down claims; and on "legitimate" request, law enforcement. Major problem with the last is that very few people are willing to get in the way of an investigation, for fear their refusal might be reason enough to make them a part of the investigation.

A feature, BTW, which can only be forgone by chosing to have all on board sattelite navigation functionality remotely disabled. Note: that "remotely", means the integrity of the "off switch" is ENTIRELY up to a tech in a cubicle farm somewhere on the Indian sub-continent, and down to the lowest bidder. The alternative, physical intervention with a ball peen hammer (or screwdriver) at the component level is not an option for most users and is likely a deal/warranty breaker anyways.

When every motor vehicle comes with its own built in, remotely triggerable, tracking device, a narrow judicial ruling against the physical installation of a third party device the size of a housebrick becomes entirely irrelevant.

What is needed is a ruling or act of congress/parliament which absolutely forbids any form of continuous tracking of motor vehicles, except in "hot pursuit" or by specific judicial order/probable cause warrant. Increasing ubiquity of license plate recognition systems is quickly making it possible to automatically track the movements of a vehicle without interfering with that vehicle in any way. This alone, if it's not carefully restricted, makes the whole "fitted tracking device" argument null and void.

[lbrtbell]

17. Yet another reason older cars are so much better - n/t

[tcaudilllg]

12. They must be sane.

Those who don't buy OnStar are insane, and must be made sane. Perhaps subjecting them to their worst fear will make them betray their friends, making them sane thereafter.

[DaveJ]

13. I don't care. Privacy is a thing of the past.

They've already got satellites, cameras, cell phone tracking, RFIDs, Facebook, ISPs, and whatever else they build into electronics. Might as well just streamline the process. If someone's mother or sister gets raped or murdered they'll jump at the chance to use this technology.

[Xtraneous]

23. Wow, now I know why the rest of us are beating our heads against a wall.

Yes, we should all just go with the flow because of the straw man. Thank you, big bro!

[SeattleVet]

14. If you find one attached to your car can you keep it? nt

[Marnie]

16. It also opens the door to drone type attacks.

Don't laugh or scoff Obama has murdered to Americans,that we know of. Any evil can be justified of you are not answerable for it.

[astral]

19. Now that is a detail I had not thought of.

On a new car I do not think you are even allowed to buy one not equipped with this tracking; you may not buy Onstar but it's there. What I have also heard it you can not disable it or wreck it without ruining your car's ability to run.

Things are closing in all around us like the being pulled shut at the opening to the bag once the cat's inside.

[Downwinder]

18. I have no problem with it, as long as I can drop a tracking

device on Government vehicles. After all they are my employees.

[Matariki]

21. *Now* the Supreme Court thinks of this?

Oy. :eyes: