Secret GPS device on vehicle? Government overstepping its bounds?

[RetiredGySgt]

I am sure they need the warrants but as with everything sometimes that does not happen.

I mean exactly what i said. Tracking some people over others. Your run of the mill drug user, then no. Tracking a drug dealer, sure. Tracking someone with terrorists ties, sure. Tracking your average muslim, no.

I'm going to bed shortly, so I may not answer tonight, but I must disagree with you.

One, I got the impression from the article that warrants were not needed.

Two, Don't you think that innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that we here in America still want to live by?

Immie

My understanding is that warrants are needed to track. Warrants are needed to listen in on phones.

Yes, i believe in innocent until proven guilty. Why do you think they are being tracked or listened in on?

Night Immie

Courts disagree. In this story the 9th AGREED the FBI can track with OUT a warrant. The reasoning is that one does not have an expectation of privacy as to where they drive on public roads. And that is all a tracker can tell the cops, where you went or have been.

Some Courts disagree. This will end up before the Supreme Court and I suspect that they will rule that a warrant is NOT required.

I mean really, is a warrant required for a cop to tail someone? If the answer is no, then there is no reason one should be required for a tracking device.

 

[shintao]

Why did they do it? dumb. If the guy owns a cell phone, and who doesn't, they have a GPS on him.

Only if it is turned on for use.

 

[shintao]

this case is actually good in the long run. now the ACLU has something to challenge it on and will once again protect our civil liberties from the hands of neocons who want to place us into a police state

You don't even know what it means.

yes I do as we have gone over a number of times, but I am glad to see you have no rebuttal as usual

Hmm, well I don't know, if he had said anything more he would have been a bigger fool than he is now...........LMAO!

 

[Middleman]

Was this man suspicious, other that being from a Muslim background?

 

[Si modo]

The arab name shouldn't make a difference.

You can't do this kind of thing without a warrant. Period.

Not according to the article and evidently a court ruling that says that the government can do this. The court opinion was that the FBI could do this and it was not a violation of the right to privacy.

I wonder how pissed the FBI agent would have been if the victim had thrown the device on the floor and stomped on it in front of him.

Immie

My opinion. Putting the device in his car without a warrent or his permission should not be allowed.

On the other hand, if the person is tracked via their cellphone, too bad for them. The government, more specifically the military, owns the satellites involved in GPS (there may be some private ones popping up, but the overall system is military). If one doesn't want to be tracked, don't have a cell phone.

 

[Charles_Main]

Was this man suspicious, other that being from a Muslim background?

She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.

Not saying whether or not that justifies it, but clearly they were going on more than just the fact he is Muslim.

 

[Big Fitz]

Without probable cause, these are violations of the 4th amendment.

It supposes guilt without due process.

Suspected terrorists pass the sniff test.

Regardless, we're getting back to a stage where we need to seriously consider letting the Patriot Act sunset, rewrite small sections that actually do prove useful for law enforcement (like bugging a person, not just a phone when under surveillance for criminal activities) and scuttle the rest (which is about 80% of it)

 

[Charles_Main]

Without probable cause, these are violations of the 4th amendment.

It supposes guilt without due process.

Suspected terrorists pass the sniff test.

Regardless, we're getting back to a stage where we need to seriously consider letting the Patriot Act sunset, rewrite small sections that actually do prove useful for law enforcement (like bugging a person, not just a phone when under surveillance for criminal activities) and scuttle the rest (which is about 80% of it)

As long as they can not use anything they find on someone that is not directly related to Terrorism. I do not see what is so scary about this.

 

[ConHog]

Why did they do it? dumb. If the guy owns a cell phone, and who doesn't, they have a GPS on him.

Only if it is turned on for use.

Incorrect. In real life a cell phone is always putting out a signal to let the towers know it is there. The government could track that at any time. Only in the movies does a bad guy have to have his phone on. Now if the battery were pulled that's a different story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I repeat.... Is a warrant required to follow someone? Do the police need a warrant to follow someone 24/7. If the answer is no, then the tacking device is not an invasion of their privacy. Nor should it require a warrant.

NO ONE has an expectation of privacy in regards to where they travel on public roads. Or are we gonna start arresting private detectives now as well?

 

[fyrenza]

Dear and I were team drivers over-the-road way back when the first talk of Black Boxes began,

and I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything wrong with the Big Idea.

I did the speed limits; we never cheated on our log books; I saw it as PROTECTION for us, tbh.

The only down-side I could see was if we were wanting to do "wrong,"

and since we weren't, I didn't worry too much about how the folks that DID want to felt about it all.

For me, the bottom line was that if I wasn't doing anything illegal?

A record of what I WAS doing would prove it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The arab name shouldn't make a difference.

You can't do this kind of thing without a warrant. Period.

So what are you going to do to stop it? This has been ok and considered no violations, of anyones rights

 

[bigrebnc1775]

this case is actually good in the long run. now the ACLU has something to challenge it on and will once again protect our civil liberties from the hands of neocons who want to place us into a police state

Last time I checked obama and the democratic controlled the government they extended the patriot act and expanded it's power. So no blu this is all democrat bullshit

 

[sissyrennee]

I for one say good job FBI. Has anyone on here even bothered to research the problem with this kids history? His family all left the USA to go to egypt where his father died, he has a best friend posting plans about an attack on extremist websites and he comes back from Egypt all on his lonesome for school? My ass. Egypt has schools. This bleeding heart crap is why we have just as many terrorist hiding amongst us as there are in the international community. Thank you FBI for looking out for us even when the kids don't want it. The FBI don't GPS track someone simply because their names are different. Surveillance like that costs a lot of money, they had concerns and the responsible thing to do was thoroughly check the situation out.

 

[Paulie]

I'm going to bed shortly, so I may not answer tonight, but I must disagree with you.

One, I got the impression from the article that warrants were not needed.

Two, Don't you think that innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that we here in America still want to live by?

Immie

My understanding is that warrants are needed to track. Warrants are needed to listen in on phones.

Yes, i believe in innocent until proven guilty. Why do you think they are being tracked or listened in on?

Night Immie

Courts disagree. In this story the 9th AGREED the FBI can track with OUT a warrant. The reasoning is that one does not have an expectation of privacy as to where they drive on public roads. And that is all a tracker can tell the cops, where you went or have been.

Some Courts disagree. This will end up before the Supreme Court and I suspect that they will rule that a warrant is NOT required.

I mean really, is a warrant required for a cop to tail someone? If the answer is no, then there is no reason one should be required for a tracking device.

You do realize that people drive vehicles in places other than public roads, right?

If your argument is only for where they're going on public roads, then does the legality of the device cease once someone exits from a public road?

I mean, if a cop was tracking them down a public road, and the driver of the vehicle left the public road and entered some kind of private drive somewhere, the cop would presumably have to abandon its trail.

But with a GPS device, they get to continue tracking a vehicle throughout its private travels as well.

This oversteps legal boundaries.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I for one say good job FBI. Has anyone on here even bothered to research the problem with this kids history? His family all left the USA to go to egypt where his father died, he has a best friend posting plans about an attack on extremist websites and he comes back from Egypt all on his lonesome for school? My ass. Egypt has schools. This bleeding heart crap is why we have just as many terrorist hiding amongst us as there are in the international community. Thank you FBI for looking out for us even when the kids don't want it. The FBI don't GPS track someone simply because their names are different. Surveillance like that costs a lot of money, they had concerns and the responsible thing to do was thoroughly check the situation out.

He's an American citizen he deserves every right protected by the bill of rights.
Maybe the government could place some GPS's on vehicles known to travel south of the border to find those drug dealers in Mexico and end the illegal immigrant problem

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dear and I were team drivers over-the-road way back when the first talk of Black Boxes began,

and I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything wrong with the Big Idea.

I did the speed limits; we never cheated on our log books; I saw it as PROTECTION for us, tbh.

The only down-side I could see was if we were wanting to do "wrong,"

and since we weren't, I didn't worry too much about how the folks that DID want to felt about it all.

For me, the bottom line was that if I wasn't doing anything illegal?

A record of what I WAS doing would prove it.

The problem is they are profiling a person. Sure on the surface it all looks good but who's to say the government wouldn't say you or your love ones was a danger to this country because you spoke out against the powers that be.
Think of all the othe BS legislation that Congress has pushed through.
Cap and trade. GPS would come in handy to track your carbon footprint.
Healthcare
GPS would come in handy to track and see what kind of life style you live, like where you go to eat if you go to the gym.
OH the GPS can be used for many purposes for tracking besides tracking true enemy's of this country.
Now they have the door open who's next on their list.

 

[Lost Soul]

Oil change reignites debate over GPS trackers - Yahoo! News

SAN FRANCISCO – Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage.

The wire was attached to a strange magnetic device that puzzled Afifi and the mechanic. They freed it from the car and posted images of it online, asking for help in identifying it.

Two days later, FBI agents arrived at Afifi's Santa Clara apartment and demanded the return of their property — a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.

One federal judge wrote that the widespread use of the device was straight out of George Orwell's novel, "1984".

"By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives," wrote Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a blistering dissent in which a three-judge panel from his court ruled that search warrants weren't necessary for GPS tracking.

The USA Patriot Act was one of the things that turned me against the Republican Party. It is things like the above story that have made me feel like we no longer live in a land governed by a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people".

How do you all feel about this particular case? Does the fact that the student (I should identify him as "the victim") has an Arabic sounding name and is apparently Arabic make a difference to you?

Immie

Well when the majority of the worlds terrorist are in fact muslims from Arabs countries I can understand why the FBI was checking this guy out.

But on the other hand, I thought Obamay going to stop this type of stuff? Yet you dont have a problem with it?

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay... I'm going to throw out the example that Walter Williams used to cover the "We don't do anything wrong" argument.

He had a woman come into his office, and gave the argument that there's nothign wrong with searching at will anything in her life. So Walter goes, 'fine. If you have nothing to hide, I would like to search your purse. May I?"

The woman hesitant went "sure".

"After all, you have nothing to hide," Williams went on. He then to proceed through her purse. Nothing illegal was in there, but he looked at her checkbook, and found her Xanex bottle and counted the pills. Found the pair of condoms and of course other sundry things with little impact. He watched her while doing this and she looked intensely uncomfortable.

Williams then put back every item in there, an gave the purse back to her and asked her how she felt. The woman responded, she felt a little violated.

THAT is what the issue is. It is a violation of your property and your inalienable rights.

This is why the 4th Amendment exists. Illegal search and seizure. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. that was invented, whole cloth, during Roe V. Wade and is eroding the ability for government to function properly. If someone walks onto your property and looks in windows catching you walking nude in your house, because your shrubs block the view from the street, that is tresspassing. On the other hand if you were observed from a public street, it is your own fault for not pulling the blinds. You are responsible to protect your own privacy, not the government. They don't protect rights, they usurp them if given the chance.

If someone taps your phone line, they are tresspassing. if they take pictures of you without your permission its a violation of contract law because you did not agree for them to profit from your image.

You may say that you have nothing to hide, fine. There are millions of people out there willing to violate you on this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay... I'm going to throw out the example that Walter Williams used to cover the "We don't do anything wrong" argument.

He had a woman come into his office, and gave the argument that there's nothign wrong with searching at will anything in her life. So Walter goes, 'fine. If you have nothing to hide, I would like to search your purse. May I?"

The woman hesitant went "sure".

"After all, you have nothing to hide," Williams went on. He then to proceed through her purse. Nothing illegal was in there, but he looked at her checkbook, and found her Xanex bottle and counted the pills. Found the pair of condoms and of course other sundry things with little impact. He watched her while doing this and she looked intensely uncomfortable.

Williams then put back every item in there, an gave the purse back to her and asked her how she felt. The woman responded, she felt a little violated.

THAT is what the issue is. It is a violation of your property and your inalienable rights.

This is why the 4th Amendment exists. Illegal search and seizure. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. that was invented, whole cloth, during Roe V. Wade and is eroding the ability for government to function properly. If someone walks onto your property and looks in windows catching you walking nude in your house, because your shrubs block the view from the street, that is tresspassing. On the other hand if you were observed from a public street, it is your own fault for not pulling the blinds. You are responsible to protect your own privacy, not the government. They don't protect rights, they usurp them if given the chance.

If someone taps your phone line, they are tresspassing. if they take pictures of you without your permission its a violation of contract law because you did not agree for them to profit from your image.

You may say that you have nothing to hide, fine. There are millions of people out there willing to violate you on this.

Great reply. Nice example Fitz