-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Nifty surveillance trend: Cops GPS track cars
without warrants [priv]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:45:07 -0500
From: wes_morgan@private
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5533560.html
>
> By Declan McCullagh
> January 12, 2005, 11:00 AM PST
>
> When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a
> plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent
> stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a
> court order by state police.
>
> Police suspected the lawyer of ties to a local Hells Angels Motorcycle
> Club that was selling methamphetamine, and they feared undercover
> officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit
> group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities. So
> investigators stuck a GPS, or Global Positioning System, bug on Moran's
> car, watched his movements, and arrested him on drug charges a month
later.
>
> A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need
> court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. "Law enforcement
> personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as
> it traveled on the public highways," U.S. District Judge David Hurd
> wrote. "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his
> vehicle on a public roadway."
Interesting - and it raises an scary question of scale.
Does this mean, then, that the LEAs can use GPS bugs indiscriminately?
This would obviously scale extremely well for the LEAs; one officer could
attach bugs to X vehicles (or X dozen, or X hundred, for that matter) and
track them all automatically. Of course, this also supports "after the
fact" surveillance, in that one need merely peruse the GPS logs for the
last X days/weeks to retrace the targets' travels. Probable cause will
HAVE to come into play at some point, but--with the ruling in this case
asserting that no expectation of privacy exists when behind the wheel--at
what point will the check-and-balance kick in?
--Wes
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Nifty surveillance trend: Cops GPS track cars
without warrants [priv]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:46:01 +1100
From: Truckle The Uncivil <truckle.the.uncivil@private>
Reply-To: Truckle The Uncivil <truckle.the.uncivil@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <41E6022B.1010006@private>
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:07:55 -0500, Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
wrote:
>
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5533560.html
>
> By Declan McCullagh
> January 12, 2005, 11:00 AM PST
>
> When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a
> plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent
> stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a
> court order by state police.
>
Couldn't this guy lay a charge of "theft of resources" (ie. petrol
cost) in the same wayt that the cost of a miniscule amount of
electricity has been held against computer users/intruders ?
[I doubt it, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld police use of
"bumper beepers" before. --Declan]
--
Truckle The Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae
But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie.
We can neither love nor pity, nor forgive,
If you make a slip in handling us you die!
--The Secret of the Machines-- Rudyard Kipling
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Nifty surveillance trend: Cops GPS track cars without warrants
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:51:50 -0600
From: Parks <parks@private>
To: HCLP@private, declan@private
TYRANNY ALERT:
>A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need
>court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. "Law enforcement
>personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as
>it traveled on the public highways," U.S. District Judge David Hurd
>wrote. "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his
>vehicle on a public roadway."
These are tyrants in black robes.
We have a TEXAS law that you can't record conversations unless at least YOU
are a participant without warrant. Many states are even more strict. We
could talk to anyone in public, but we don't expect that our every
conversation would be recorded without a court order, why any less than we
expect that the government shouldn't monitor/record our movements or take
our picture with telephoto cameras or track our license plates from afar?
Just to show you that people DO believe they have privacy in their car, it
would be interesting to see how many people are picking their noses or
doing other impolite acts in a car thinking they are in private? This
government definition of privacy is an affront to our expectation of
privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT, morons in black robes notwithstanding.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) freeway tracking cameras HAVE the
ability to track everyone everywhere on the highway. Show you care: shoot
the bird at Big Brother.
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 10:49:04 PST