(Supreme) Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS

NY Times ^ | 9/10/11 | ADAM LIPTAK

[Libloather]

Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: September 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — The precedent is novel. More precisely, the precedent is a novel.

In a series of rulings on the use of satellites and cellphones to track criminal suspects, judges around the country have been citing George Orwell’s “1984” to sound an alarm. They say the Fourth Amendment’s promise of protection from government invasion of privacy is in danger of being replaced by the futuristic surveillance state Orwell described.

**SNIP**

Last month, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn turned down a government request for 113 days of location data from cellphone towers, citing “Orwellian intrusion” and saying the courts must “begin to address whether revolutionary changes in technology require changes to existing Fourth Amendment doctrine.”

The Supreme Court is about to do just that. In November, it will hear arguments in United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259, the most important Fourth Amendment case in a decade. The justices will address a question that has divided the lower courts: Do the police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car and track its movements for weeks at a time?

[Gilbo_3]

how would physically installing a GPS on my car be any different than installing a 'bug' in my house, or putting a tap on my phone line ???

i thought there was supposed to be specific items to be searched/seized ??? wouldnt common sencse demand a bit of certainty regarding physically altering my vehicle ???

[Carry_Okie]

I not only want to see this kind of surveillance be ruled illegal I want to see a bill that makes even private GPS tracking illegal without written customer permission.

I hate my cell phone. For the most part, it stays off.

[NakedRampage]

Thats what I meant...Thank you for stating it far more eloquently than I ever could of. :)

[NakedRampage]

By tracking the every move of all citizens, they are essentially saying "you are all criminals, that big brother must keep an eye on."

What would be more reasonable would perhaps to track sex offenders (with knowledge but without consent), parolees (as a documented and agreed to parole term), etc.

[Carry_Okie]

What would be more reasonable would perhaps to track sex offenders (with knowledge but without consent), parolees (as a documented and agreed to parole term), etc.

What that does is build an infrastructure capable of tracking everyone. Add the "National Animal Identification System" and some of the credit card transaction reporting provisions Chris Dodd was pitching and what you've got is a system capable of tracking your every move and transaction.

I am opposed to creating such an infrastructure. It's too much power.