Posted on 08/17/2008 8:54:24 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Yes, and there was controversy around eight or so months ago about On*Star working with police.
I would think that an escalation of ECM would follow. GPS blockers and transmitter sweeps are easy.
I don’t have a problem with this at all.
If there is abuse attack the abuse but I see this as a cheaper way to tail a suspect, something we expect of our police. The more scum we put away the better. If there is no crime involved then the GPS device can be placed on the next suspect. What’s the problem?
To echo the comments of others, it seems as if this technology simply accomplishes what could be done by a flesh-and-blood officer trailing a suspect. I have a hard time seeing how using the GPS device, by itself, would violate 4th amendment rights.
But I also don't want to live in a society where police surveillance is so enveloping that you feel like you're under watch 24/7. There may not be a Constitutional problem with a policeman on every corner and behind every car, but those are hardly the conditions that a free country like ours should tolerate.
So even if this issue, on its own, is not a Constitutional problem for the courts, it is definitely an issue for the voters to take seriously. Even if the courts say warrants are not required, we should demand that law enforcement agencies obtain them anyway...or at least some kind of oversight and outside control to prevent these technologies from getting out of hand.
In the first place, the financial house does not own the financed car. The borrower does. All the lender has is a lien, which allows them to take ownership of the car if the borrower fails to repay the loan.
But the real issue is that the 4th Amendment protections turn on legal possession and reasonable expectation of privacy, not on ownership. So they apply to occupiers or users of rented and leased property as well as owned.
Notice I said legal possession. It's perfectly fine to invade a thief's privacy electronically. There was a case recently where somebody stole a laptop. As soon as the thief, who now had physical, but not legal, possession put the computer on the internet, its owner got into it and remotely activated its built-in camera. As it happened, he recognized the thief as a local troublemaker, and the cops took it from there.
As far as installing tracking devices on vehicles, I think it ought to be subject to the same rules as bugs and wiretaps.
Did they have a search warrant??
Doesn't appear any different than following him around with deputies, except you can monitor from central location and dispatch observation to an exact location when proximity to bad behavior appears likely. Not to mention reduced likelihood of compromise...
I can see possibility for abuse sure but given expense and monitoring it seems unlikely to be used for fishing.
Because, just like the muslims, they are testing the system. After all who can compalin about them catching this piece of dirt?
Next it's your car, just in case you might drive too fast. AND they were pretty sure they saw you run a red light last week, but could catch you. Now they will.
Point is, in VA, they could have gotten a warrant no problem.
So I suspect you are correct.
I don't know who stole your on-line name, but who ever it is is posting the postings of a fool using your stolen ID.
I'll wager The Thinker has broken a dozen laws and regulations (minimum) during the past week, from speeding to running a red light, sliding through a stop sign, or perhaps cutting off someone on the freeway. And those are just moving violations. Wait until they sew one into his shoes.
Now you are putting words in 'The Thinkers' mouth, temping the authorities to trail him 24 hours a day.
That's beyond cruel. It they do so, The Thinker will have racked up over a thousands in fines by next Sunday.
Shame on you, give his name back to him so he can defend himself!!!!
Again, if the POS outright owns the vehicle, they have no case. If a loan is made to buy the car, then, with permission from the financing house, you can place the GPS.
So if you own your house outright you have rights but if you rent or if you have a loan against it the bank can give permission to search??
Nope. This is simply a more efficient way of following a suspect. If the suspect is truly innocent, the evidence gathered in this manner would help him rather than hurt him.
A few years ago the California Air Resources Board, CARB, announced that they wanted to mandate the newer OBD systems on vehicles be linked to GPS devices and have unique identifiers.
CARB has a plan to place emission sensors on the side of roads and when the sensors detect a vehicle out of compliance it would be logged by CARB and warnings sent to the vehicle owner.
If the vehicle is not brought into compliance then when the sensors detect the vehicle again a warning will be sent to the vehicle via the GPS and then the vehicle will be remotely shut down by CARB.
Hello Big Brother!
The fact that on-but-idle cell phones have helped locate kidnapped people is something I would rather the media kept to themselves. The fact the we were listening to OBL's satellite phone is something I would rather the NYT have kept to itself.
OnStar uses a GPS and a cellular connection. Getting cell phone coordinates varies. Most phones allow a privacy setting that only allows phone location in a 911 call. You can set the privacy level lower to allow getting a fix at any time if you want to use "location based" services. The cellular phone module I'll be using on my rail cars is so sensitive that it can be tracked when wrapped in a metal mesh bank bag, stashed in a trunk and parked in a concrete building. That takes more than simple GPS. It requires A-GPS and/or A-FLT (assisted forward link trilateration) or TDOA (time difference of arrival) to compensate for not having a direct view of the sky. TDOA can accomplish an 100 ft CEP by itself. Plenty good enough for what the cops needed in this instance. TDOA is essentially a high resolution "ping" of the handset by the tower. That establishes a circular distance from the tower. Do that with 3 towers and the intersection of the circles yields a fix.
Suffice to say, there are many ways to track a device. It's good that this case did the job. As for the 4th amendement, many ex-cons sign a 4th amendment waiver. If that was on file for this individual, the 4th amendment issue doesn't apply.
Well, you know what they say, paranoia will destroy ya. Btw, when was the last time you had that braincase examined?
Like I said I'm OK with cameras in public places not the private arena, on private property or spying devices on one's person.
“A mortgage company is a partner in a financial sense. They have a right to protect their portion of the investment. With probable cause They could probably do quite a bit towards getting listening devices installed, a GPS could be in play. “
Maybe the two properties you own are mobile homes. Around here we live in houses. There would be no reason for the mortgage company to authorize or the government to request a GPS unit be attached to a house.
AND FYI: Unless they are my friends and family or otherwise are INVITED...NOBODY comes in without a warrant. The mortgage company can’t and they can’t give anyone else permission.
You don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
Take a hike with you and your attitude. Thanks for being a clown in your assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.