
9th Circuit court rules the government can use GPS to track you - nphase
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
======
micks56
This is currently the rule in a majority of US jurisdictions.

The 9th Circuit did not make a ruling. Rather, they declined to hear the case
because California law is already on point and they do not wish to change the
law.

I am displeased with the attorney writing the article for another reason. He
wrote, "The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was
clearly in this zone of privacy." The Supreme Court articulated 4 factors to
determine zone of privacy, and proximity to the home is only one of the four.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987),

Curtliage does not mean area close to your house. It means the area that a
person can readily see (sort of). If I can see your front door from the
street, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. If I can see
your backyard when I fly over in a small airplane at a normal heigh, you have
no reasonable expectation of privacy there. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S.
207 (1986).

I am not saying that I agree with this. All I am saying is that this is the
current law and it is not new.

~~~
wrs
I think the more important issue Judge Kozinski brings up in his dissent is
the increasing approval of the use of super-human observational powers by the
police. The rule used to be that what the police can readily see--literally,
see, with their eyes--had no expectation of privacy. Now it's whatever
information the police can gather using increasingly unlimited technological
means, like GPS trackers, only vaguely related to that standard.

Actual dissent:
[http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100...](http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100812145)

~~~
micks56
I agree that this is area of concern for privacy. Right now the general
standard on what police can use for technology is that they can use the same
technology that is readily available to the general public. It isn't an
unlimited-means standard.

Thermo-imaging equipment to detect marijuana growers is not readily available,
so it cannot be used.

Telephoto lenses can be bought by anyone, so they can be used.

GPS is readily available, so it can be used.

The standard certainly is a moving target. I don't agree with its wisdom, but
that is the law as it stands.

~~~
wrs
Pinging the location of your cell phone is a capability used by police without
a warrant (in some jurisdictions) that is not available to the general public.

------
fleitz
If you want to get the ruling overturned, wait for your congress critter to
park their vehicle on a public street and do the same thing, then setup a blog
that shows the information online.

------
blahblahblah
The court is wrong on the privacy issue. Setting that issue aside, isn't what
the police did in this case an illegal act of vandalism? If you attach a
bumper sticker to a police car without the knowledge and consent of the police
department that owns it, that is vandalism and you can be prosecuted for it.
How is this unauthorized alteration of private property any different?

~~~
anamax
> How is this unauthorized alteration of private property any different?

Their car license plates are marked "exempt" - they take that seriously....

~~~
CamperBob
"Exempt" as in "exempt from vehicle license tax."

~~~
anamax
exempt from vehicle license tax is the de jure meaning. The de facto meaning
is much more broad.

------
nkassis
Is it really that hard for them to get warrants? I don't get all these
shenanigans to avoid warrants. They should be able to easily make the case
that this person was suspected of selling drugs and that the GPS data would
help prove this.

I don't understand the law involved in getting and using a warrant, can
someone clarify the difficulties that make it necessary to bypass it?

~~~
micks56
This is how you get a search warrant: A person makes an affidavit in front of
a neutral and detached magistrate, who then determines that a reasonable
person would conclude that it was more likely than not that incriminating
evidence of the named items or persons would be found in the specifically
named place to be searched.

Lots of legal buzzwords there. Each of those buzzwords adds overheard in
obtaining a warrant. Police are happy to avoid that overheard whenever
possible. That is the motivation to avoid obtaining search warrants. Plus, a
privacy minded judge might deny you. With warrant-requirement-exceptions you
don't run the risk of being denied a search. You just do it.

------
protomyth
I have a lot more respect for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. His comments on
fences and poor people are a nice rational argument to prove why this ruling
is so unfair.

------
maeon3
George Orwell 1984

exhibit A: the two way view-screens, you never know when your being watched.

exhibit B: global tracking system, from when you come out of your mother to
your grave.

We can only hope that going forward, men will resolve to behave like angels so
that they will not abuse the power we are giving them with technology.

