Security → The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

Time: The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves - Aug. 25, 2010

quote:

---

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.

---

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I wouldn't advocate grabbing our pitch-forks, tar and feathers just yet, but it sure seems to be getting close to it.

Is disabling the device illegal?

Even if it isn't, I can't imagine having to pull an airport security check on my car. This could take paranoia to a whole new level.

From the article:

quote:

---

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."

---

This is VERY DISTURBING AND SCARY!

Im glad i dont have a cell phone,im glad i dont use GPS,im glad i dont like any of this new garbage that others love!!

I'm surprised at that coming from the Ninth Circuit. Terrible decision along with the elitism. It really surprises me coming from this court that I have generally admired and been glad Hawaii is a part of....until now. This is headed for the US Supreme Court for sure.

GPS blockers are readily available for cheap and will block any GPS devices. These GPS blockers are generally very low power output that will only cover your own vehicle, so there's no problem of them causing any kind of interference with anyones GPS unit in a nearby vehicle or bother Big Brothers other GPS devices not placed on your own vehicle.

They block the GPS from sending data out right?

LOL you could be a luddite and they still would put the unit on your car and track you.

And how does not having a cell phone protect you from "secret agents" planting a device on your car......or do you not have one of them either?
--------------

I can think of a lot of things to keep me up worrying at night, but "secret agents" planting a device on *my* car isn't one of them.

Since when do GPS devices SEND? I've never seen a GPS transmitter or recievers, unless its something like Lojack.

You can buy inexpensive GPS trackers that send the coordinates as SMS messages but the ones the govt use are more sophisticated.

That decision is...is...is revolting, disgusting, elitist, arrogant in the extreme and hopefully will be overturned. Perhaps I've completely misunderstood but it appears, to put it bluntly, that only those who have the cash to purchase an estate, or possibly (those who live) on a farm can and should expect any privacy on their property. Therefore, the vast majority of Americans shouldn't have any such expectations and in fact have no protection from invasions of privacy occurring in "curtilage (legal jargon)."

If the government need not respect one's privacy in this circumstance, can it be inferred that others also need not do so in similar circumstances?

Leave your doors unlocked and your home isn't "private" anymore either! Strangers could just walk right in after all!

Except for Internet service.

"They" track your activities a lot more than you think they do.

Your Employer pays you in cash?
You pay for everything in cash?
You always use a public payphone when calling anyone?
How does the friend whose phone mysteriously calls you, call you?
You always wear gloves outside your personal residence?

You know Mental Health services are covered under basic Health Insurance plans.

That is not true but even if it was what does mental health services have to do with what Dude111 said?

I don't have a cell phone either. I don't use GPS, I don't want to have get a new car because of the tracking and having control take from me. It is a sad state of affairs when you don't look forward to things because new things are so much worse than older things in regards to what really matters. Very sad what this nation has come to.

I'd say Dude111 sees things very clearly but I am not at all sure you do.

Agree with Mele here on this one. I too am one of those old fashioned people who stick with what works for me. I do not have to have the newest most modern gadget. I do own a cell phone but it is only turned on when I am stuck someplace and need to call out in an emergency. Anyone wishing to reach me that i know has my home phone number and can call me there and leave a message. My cars may be older, but they are reliable and do not have any of the modern distractions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

There definitely should be a requirement for a search warrant. I don't think anyone expects the police to go out and install devices en masse, but the idea no justification is needed is ludicrous, as is the definition of driveway as public. Technically little children are trespassing, although no reasonable person sues little children.

What on earth was the Ninth Circuit smoking?

Looks like the people we elect to work for us, think we work for them.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Not what this recent court ruling says ! So who's right ?

Quote -

"Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking

EFF-ACLU Arguments Against Always-On Surveillance Win The Day

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant.

In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it was on private property and then used it to track the position of the automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all without securing a search warrant. In an amicus brief filed in the case, EFF and the ACLU of the Nation's Capital argued that unsupervised use of such tactics would open the door for police to abuse their power and continuously track anyone's physical location for any reason, without ever having to go to a judge to prove the surveillance is justified."

»www.eff.org/press/archiv ··· /08/06-0

Excuse me, but where's a reference to the actual text of the ruling? Time magazine is all well and good, but I'd like to read the text of the ruling, especially in light of the obvious conflict with the earlier East Coast ruling.

Who cares?

It's rigged so that the government could track the scent of your fart now a days even!!

Someone that goes around to every chat website he can find complaining that a candy company is using milkfat (or is it soy lethicin?)in their candy sees things clearly?
Dude has some serious issues he needs to deal with.

Off topic:

Err...milkfat in chocolate products NEGATES their health value totally! I have complained myself about this. To use chocolate to reduce blood pressure and bring many other health benefits one must eat bittersweet dark chocolate without milkfat. I was really upset when Ghirandelli changed their recipe for bittersweet chocolate and started adding milkfat a couple of years ago. There is no reason for companies to add milkfat to DARK chocolate. In fact, in Ghirandelli's case it detracts from the taste (in addition to negating the health benefits). Their original recipe for double chocolate bittersweet chocolate chips (which I was eating by the handful not baking with them) was really good but not as good tasting after they changed their recipe and they did so right after several medical studies were published showing that any chocolate that has milkfat in it should not be eaten. So, I can't fathom what they were thinking of in making such a stupid change.

So, explain to me again why Dude111's complaints about milkfat in chocolate are without merit.

I agree with your opinion of the decision. In some brief reading yesterday I could find no mention of an appeal of this decision. Does anyone know if this will be appealed? Thanks.

The court decision was not made by elected officials.

It would be interesting to see if this ruling also applies to vehicles which already have GPS & reporting capabilities. If so, there is no need to go out en masse because every vehicle GM cranks out is already equipped for this.

The tracker will still send data out but it wont have the data to send as the inbound GPS was blocked. Of course being the Gov 'they' will most likely use a GPS frequency that is not known to the public (if it exists)