well it is ******* whether it should be or not, well that doesn't really matter.
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move by GPS
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
well it is ******* whether it should be or not, well that doesn't really matter.
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
What part of: arrested and convicted for growing ********* is unclear here? Let me dumb this down a little:
It's not as if the government tracked him and he was innocent. No, the sumbitch was guilty. In his appeal, he was trying to use the GPS tracking to throw out the conviction by claiming that it ******** his rights. He wasn't denying that he did it, he was concerned that they cheated to get the evidence.
So, do I have a problem with that? No, I don't.
Mayhem
Banned
No, this used to be, stress used to be at the very heart of conservatism. At least it was when Ronald Reagan was around. The Bush ****** came along and virtually reversed what it means to be a conservative and a Republican (which is why I gave the lot of them a view of my white, pimply ass on the way out the door).
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
The Founding Fathers held a deep seated belief that governments are inherently untrustworthy. That's why they wrote a little thing called The Bill of Rights. Sorry you never heard of it. Maybe the local library has a copy.
If the suspicion is reasonable, then it's reasonable to expect them to obtain a warrant. And the necessity of obtaining said warrant will keep the average citizen from needing to live in fear.
Unlike Pete Rose, I'm not lol'ing. I think many of the responses here are gutless and pathetic.
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
No, if they're tracking an innocent person that's wrong. But I'm going to give the DEA the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to assume that they were investigating this man for awhile and only decided to track him after having probable cause to do so. I hope they didn't just see him at a gas station and decide it might be entertaining to track his movements. I would hope the process for tracking someone like this would be equivalent to the steps necessary to obtain a search warrant.
Random tracking of civilians like this should be *******. But tracking someone under suspicion whom you believe to be involved in **** trafficking is acceptable to me.
We're all being watched in some way or another these days. Big ******* is always watching...
Awesome point, all this electronic jazz has made things much easier for the government to track anything and everything that you do.
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
^^ Exactly. It'd be very naive to think that we're not being tracked already. This is the information age and there's plenty of it out there. And while I'm not exactly thrilled with this side effect of technology, if you keep your affairs in order, you have nothing to worry about.
I have to disagree with you on this one Trident. I want to catch Jihadists as much as anyone, but I'm not willing to slowly give up my freedom to do it. We can catch this slime without giving up our freedoms.
Facetious
Moderated
Next stop :drumroll please: The cashless society? :ak47:
It's really sick how all of this stuff is going on right before our very eyes and it's not even being recognized. Ahh, it just goes to show how easily our government in collaboration with the evil corporations can mold society into anything of their choosing . . . in one generation flat!
Simply deprive them of their history and impress upon them that anything that runs contrary to what the teacher says is radical, fringe, unconventional, extremist, whacko and conspiratorial . . . and they will follow like ants follow their queen . . it's a done deal!
i think it's perfectly logical to give up some of my freedom to be more free 
Well, if it's really that simple:
"If he hadn't been doing it, they wouldn't have tracked him in the first place."
Then what we ought to do is just have the guys from the appropriate departments of prisons/corrections come around and then haul off to jail or prison all of the guys being tracked, since they're obviously guilty.
The authorities never track anyone who isn't "doing it" [i.e. the crime they're suspected of - or, I guess now that means "guilty of"].
More nonsense and bluster. If the world was different and there was this paralysis of fear by g'ment of jihadists...GWB would have secured our borders and GOPers would have been taking him to task on it if they actually believed in it beyond the politics.
Investigators in the Laci Petersen ****** tracked Scott Petersen by covertly attaching GPS transponders to his car. So this is little more than another tool for electronic surveillance and as such the only question I would have is whether or not a warrant to do so was legally obtained prior. If so...then this is a simple matter...the cops can do it. The argument that you have no expectation of privacy in open areas of your property is a correct one IMO.
You have the right to ask anyone without a right to be on your property to leave it under threat of trespassing or harassment. But the open areas of your property are subject to anyone wandering on it ...for example to knock on your door.
Moral of the story, if you don't want to be tracked by GPS buy a frequency scanner, look for any GPS trackers on the car you drive, and collar them to stray dogs if you find any.
If that's the case then why should they not just go out and get a search warrant?
Also as far as something being an expectation of privacy while somebody viewing an object that's out in the open shouldn't be considered private I have a problem with actual physical manipulation of somebody's property when it's obvious that's not what the owner wouldn't have reason to expect. I don't have neighbors or the authorities go and jump on my car or walk across my lawn just for the hell of it, and I shouldn't have to have an expectation of that. It would be reasonable for people to expect with a few common, well known, and allowed by the property owner explanations, like the mailman delivering mail or somebody knocking on your door, things like that to not happen. I consider physically attaching on object to somebody's car as unreasonable and it isn't something people should have expected. As far as privacy goes people should definitely have an expectation that wouldn't happen.
The simple answer would be they're still building their case and surveillance is part of the process of building a sufficient case for probable cause to secure a search/arrest warrant.
With that way of thinking they might as well think they have the right to just stick a camera in your house to gain evidence when your not looking. Without a warrant I don't think they should have had the right to mess with the car in the first place. The thing they did with the car reminds me of the old ******* "sneak and peek" technique *************** does.
How does any of this play in with last month's "Secret Government" review on the Homeland Security morass expose from the Washington Times?
Not quite. There is a process..there has to be a way to investigate a suspect or a person of interest or whatever they call it in order to make a case.
You don't go from absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing to a rock solid case for conviction in most situations.
If there is some reasonable suspicion then that gives cops probable cause to investigate. That entails a number of tactics that may or may not require a warrant. A cop doesn't need a warrant to sit outside someone's house or job or any other place you have no expectation of privacy and watch you.
I suspect there are different courses for different cases. Cops don't want to tip their hand and spook the suspect before they have enough evidence so getting a warrant for electronic surveillance usually comes before a full search or arrest warrant.
I don't think it ought to be legal to do electronic surveillance of any type without a warrant.
I'm not sure if I misspoke in my last post about this but what I believe is if your car is in your driveway, it's your property..cops have the right to observe anything in plain view..including you. You have no expectation of privacy in this case. But attaching a device to someone's personal property should require a warrant of some type IMO.
Similar threads
