

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars - sheats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1

======
tptacek
Makes sense to me. If sticking a GPS transmitter on your car violates a
fundamental right to _privacy_ , surreptitiously following your car with a
combination of cars, closed-circuit cameras, helicopters, and whatever-the-
hell else they use must violate that same right. Yet clearly the police can
surveille whoever they want without a warrant.

~~~
nimai
This is based on the assumption that the car is only ever used on public
roads. It's usually a safe assumption, but data is still being transmitted
from private property whenever the car is parked.

~~~
tptacek
Unless you have an actual batcave, comparable data is being transmitted
without the GPS transmitter in the form of photons.

------
nimai
I think this is a good indication that the right to privacy is obsolete. If an
investigator can hear a conversation you're having in your house using
amplification technology, who needs a warrant?

The whole point of the right to privacy, as I understand it, is protection
against over-zealous police forces enforcing unjust laws. If you're doing
something in private, and it doesn't affect anyone, you should be allowed to
do it, regardless of the law.

We need a right to anonymous private activity, regardless of where or how it
takes place.

~~~
markstansbury
Actually, the right to privacy has nothing to do with whether a law is just or
unjust. I think we'll see an element of that creep into the law as they very
concept of privacy erodes. But the basic idea behind privacy in the Fourth
Amendment search-and-seizure context is that police ought to be subject to
oversight (by the courts) so that they don't become a menace.

Incidentally, the problem with search-and-seizure jurisprudence is that every
time the Supreme Court hears a case on the subject the defendant _IS_ guilty--
the debate is over whether the evidence of guilt is admissible in court. That
makes it hard for the Court to turn a blind eye so they tend to expand the law
in favor of the police every time they get a new case. The alternative is to
free a known criminal. It takes guts to hold police to a principle when the
immediate result is to free a criminal.

~~~
nimai
This is exactly what I mean when I say the right to privacy is obsolete - by
itself, it's no longer capable of protecting the freedoms it was originally
intended to preserve. We need something better.

~~~
tptacek
_What_ right to privacy? Privacy is a very simple word. It occurs _nowhere_ in
the Constitution.

~~~
markstansbury
It may appear nowhere in the constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't
constitutionally protected.

The substantive due process protections of the 14th Amendment extend
heightened protection to a number of rights. Privacy is one of them. Marriage
is another. There are plenty more.

In addition the 4th Amendment has its own privacy implications.

------
korch
GPS tracking is the tip of the iceberg. I bet we're not 10 years away from the
cops being able to put an all in one video-audio-gps-wifi snooper the size of
an ipod-nano on you, your car, house, boat, whatever. And given how fast
hardware commoditizes, the device will probably cost under $500. If these
hypothetical devices become equipped to tweet, then everybody is fucked. It
sure gives me confidence that our law enforcement worker-bees are amongst the
most trustworthy, noble and incorruptible Americans out there! In many
countries, everybody implicitly understands the police are corrupt, and
basically operate like the biggest, legal gang themselves. _/sarcasm_

Thanks a lot technologically myopic courts for setting such a dangerous legal
precedent!

On the bright side, isn't it trivial and relatively cheap to make a radio
detector of GPS and other such radio transmissions? Or even a signal jammer?
Like what the spies use to sweep a room for listening devices? Let's just
assume you're cool with temporarily violating FCC broadcast regulations within
a small personal vicinity. ;)

Unintended consequences are my favorite however. Perhaps, if we're lucky, this
situation might just invert, and if total surveillance becomes dirt cheap,
then it also means we can watch the watchers. Imagine a Facebook for watching
every LE agent in real time across the entire country. Sounds laughable, but
technology changes fast! (I bet certain global crime cartels already have
something like this, in crude beta—all it takes is one mole and you've got the
right data to connect the dots.)

~~~
jeebusroxors
_On the bright side, isn't it trivial and relatively cheap to make a radio
detector of GPS and other such radio transmissions? Or even a signal jammer?
Like what the spies use to sweep a room for listening devices? Let's just
assume you're cool with temporarily violating FCC broadcast regulations within
a small personal vicinity._

GPS jammers can be had for pretty cheap, but I believe they're illegal.
Tinfoil works pretty well too.

 _Perhaps, if we're lucky, this situation might just invert, and if total
surveillance becomes dirt cheap, then it also means we can watch the watchers.
Imagine a Facebook for watching every LE agent in real time across the entire
country._

The devices for this are already pretty cheap as well (zoombak I believe?),
probably illegal to track a LEO as well though.

