This discussion
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0800 > From: Declan McCullagh <keunwoo@gmail.com> > Subject: [Politech] Replies to trend of cops using GPS trackers without > warrants [priv] > > -------- 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@us.ibm.com > To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > > > 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@gmail.com> > Reply-To: Truckle The Uncivil <truckle.the.uncivil@gmail.com> > To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > References: <41E6022B.1010006@well.com> > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:07:55 -0500, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > > 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@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu> > To: HCLP@yahoogroups.com, declan@well.com > > 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/) > _______________________________________________ > Soctech mailing list > Soctech@cs.washington.edu > https://mailman.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/soctech
