I just read the story about the guy who found a tracking device under his car that was placed by the feds without a warrant or probable cause. What happened to privacy? Can someone explain to me how this is legal?
Posted Nov 8, 2011, 5:56 PM UTC
[deleted]
Your example is of questionable legality, one which the Supreme Court is supposedly "deeply concerned by" and may rule against.
I really hope so. I don't like it how they sacrifice our freedom to track us everywhere. I understand they're trying to keep us safe, but this is too much. Its scary.
[deleted]
I like to stand behind the "Rights are not something given to you; they're something that cannot be taken away" mentality, myself. Fuck the constitution. Don't be puttin' tracking devices on me.
This. Well except the "fuck the constitution" part.
=D Well, okay. that was overstated. I don't mean that the Constitution is to be DISREGARDED. I just mean that the constitution has no bearing on this discussion, and I'm not gonna turn to it to see whether I've got a right or not to privacy.
Was my point.
Oh I see. XD
.< papercuts
The legality of this is currently being challenged in court. The FBI says they don't need a warrant to track cars on public roads. Sane people are calling BS. Hopefully the courts make the right call and officially ban this practice. Hopefully, if it gets banned, the FBI and other agencies actually follow the law.
Yep, they obey the law they're sworn to uphold. Yup, I believe that. Yup, yup.
Me too.
Placing a GPS on your vehicle (aka property) is no different than someone placing a GPS in the grass at the end of your driveway in the front yard (aka property). Not saying I agree with it, but that is how it is.
Hopefully my lawn doesn't go out roaming.
Hopefully, the court will disagree.
I'll answer your question with a question: why didn't you post this question in the thread about that article?
Well the question isn't really about the article itself and isn't this a subreddit for questions?
This isn't so much of a question as a thinly veiled opinion, don't you think?
I could say, "I just read an article that said gay people can get married in New York. What happened to decency in America?" and it has the same tone and impact of your quesiton, but contains a disagreeable opinion from reddit's perspective.
I'm asking how is it that someone can track you without a warrant or probable cause. And I'd also like to see people's opinions on the matter. There's nothing wrong with a little discussion is there?
Yeah, but, there's a great discussion going on in the thread about the article on the front page of reddit right now.
I find it redundant to come to AskReddit with the same discussion. I guess the constant circlejerking of reddit annoys me more than it should.
From the big discussion on this in r/politics, apparently it was already deemed not to be a violation of privacy to place a radio transmitter on someone's car so that police could follow them even if they lost visual for short periods (as in following directly in a car behind them).
The pro-GPS arguement is that this is just a further development of this technology, but the anti-GPS is that it produces far more invasive information on the subject and isn't really augmented tailing (since they can wait till the GPS is done before even needing to pay attention). It's pretty undecided, which is why it's in court
Also, the radio transmitters were, iirc, 20 years ago, so pre-date 9/11 and the Patriot Act. Not that they haven't taken advantage of them in other areas, but in this one it could potentially be seen as just a more advanced version of tech which was given the go ahead decades ago
Thank you for your answer. That really clears things up.
if your car i parked in the street, they could just track it manually by following you. or they can put a device on it, saving the state some overtime payouts.
Your car has no right to privacy.
edit: read: http://autos.aol.com/article/police-can-track-car-via-gps/
Your car has no right to privacy.
Are you explaining the reality of the situation or is this your own personal belief? No part of your argument is a legitimate validation for the state's constitutional violations.
it's the reality of the situation. If you are driving your car, you are in public, on public roads and there is no presumption of privacy. tracking the car is not the same as bugging the car to listen to conversations happening inside of it.
you're beginning with the false premise of a "constitutional violation"
I guess that makes sense, but there is definitely something wrong with tracking people's cars for no apparent reason.
just because a reason isnt apparent, doesnt mean it isnt valid.
Yes, it is the reality of the situation. Incredibly unfortunate.
you're beginning with the false premise of a "constitutional violation"
Right, of course, when we're referring to text written centuries ago, we will always be required to do some amount of interpretation. Some of us just feel that the architects of the constitution were unable to predict the day when cars and electronics and GPS were invented, but if they had been, we are fairly confident that they would have weighed in on the people's side of the matter. They would have never allowed the state to track anyone who happens to be travelling in a motor vehicle on a public road at any time, without warrant. It seems that they would qualified this as an unreasonable warrantless search, and would have used the fourth amendment of the constitution to argue against it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Doesn't seem like much of a false premise.
Yeah, everything you just pulled out of your ass is totally sensible, sure.
Putting a device on your car is a violation of your property rights. If they can track it manually by following you, they should do that instead.
Isn't it ironic how they claim to protect us when they don't even respect our rights or follow the law themselves? I mean, I don't mean to sound anti-government here, but I just think the feds need to start following their own rules...
again, there's no saying that they do not have a court-approved, valid reason which they are simply not interested in divulging.
simply not interested in divulging.
I don't really know how that works, but I'm pretty sure that's not acceptable.
i guarantee you it is.
There is a bit of parallel with observing something inside a house from the outside. Sorry, no references, but if someone is standing on public right-of-way outside your house and observes something inside your house with their unaided eyesight, that is not "unreasonable search". But if they use an aid such as night vision or binoculars, that crosses the line.
IMO, applying an electronic device so the lazy bastards don't have to get off their asses to follow me should be considered over that line.
It's really just making use of the technology. That's like saying you shouldnt write an email because you're too lazy to walk to the mailbox.
The police arent tracking the vehicle, the state is.
That might be a valid point if there weren't so many cases of law enforcement acting without judicial oversight. In other words, in many cases it is the police acting on their own hunch/suspicion/procedure without any "state" involvement at all.
I have doubts that individual officers have access to GPS tracking equipment which they are free to use without oversight.
I have doubts that individual officers have access to GPS tracking equipment which they are free to use without oversight.
YEAH EDEN! what happened to the right to privacy?? stop lurking on my reddit account! haha.
Wait who's Eden? I think you may have me confused...or maybe I'm missing something @_@
The Patriot Act didn't help.
9/11
Thank Bush for the Patriot Act. It's only legal because of that now.
Yeah. This is what happens when fear starts ruling our lives...
We need petitions or something to get the law null and void. This shit is getting ridiculous. I'd rather live my life without worrying about terrorism or what the government will do to us all than being randomly watched by the feds and have my privacy stripped from me just because I disapprove of what's going on in DC. I mean what the hell? Little kids can't even fly on planes anymore if they share a name with a suspected terrorist.
Not to mention you have to get groped every time you go to an airport.
Yeah, that too. I'd rather not have my child groped or be groped myself. They have all these laws against sexual harassment, one of them includes unwanted touching, yet TSA is allowed to without punishment?
Talk about double standards.
[deleted]
Well thats just menacingly unhelpful...
It's been dead and gone since well before you were born.
I believe it but would you care to elaborate?
It is a myth and has never concretely existed.
Well thats just unhelpful.
You are taking the view that privacy actually does exist. That you have always had a right to it. You havent had the right to it, and it only ever existed because it just wasnt feasible or you were not interesting enough to look into.
It has become feasible to look into anyone and starting to be feasible to look into EVERYONE. Tomorrow it will even be easier.
9/11, Patriot Act.
And now the current administration is attempting take that a step further by trying to use GPS tracking on regular citizens. /sigh
EDIT: I have included more sources.
Wired Huffington Post
This is unbelievable. So much for "The Land of the Free" I guess...
1984 here we come.
Hah, that actually crossed my mind a few times...