Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on January 12, 2005, 08:15:04 PM
-
This is way past the 'slippery slope' stage....Hellloo?
Snooping by satellite
Published: January 12, 2005, 11:00 AM PST
When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a court order by state police.
Police suspected the lawyer of ties to a local Hells Angels Motorcycle Club that was selling methamphetamine, and they feared undercover officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities. So investigators stuck a GPS, or Global Positioning System, bug on Moran's car, watched his movements, and arrested him on drug charges a month later.
A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. "Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways," U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote. "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." .....
Full article:
http://news.com.com/Snooping+by+satellite/2100-1028_3-5533560.html?tag=nefd.lede
-
Uhh Don't like the sound of that.
I think that a court order is in order for this kind of thing.
But on the other hand If the dude was not selling drugs............
-
It makes sense. What's the difference? They could have followed him without an order.
-
They COULD HAVE followed him, but they did'nt. It's an bug and should be illegal without a warrant. Just because it's cheaper and easier than following established law enforcement procedures does not make it legal. Bad call by the judge. Look for it to be overruled on appeal.
-
I'm betting it will be overruled as well. I think it should.
-
"Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways," U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote. "Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." .....
This is the statement that got me here. The problem with this is were do you stop w/ "reasonable expectation of privacy"? What's to stop a judge from saying that people should protect their computers better or they get hacked so if police use simple measures to scan a computer there's no "expectation of privacy" This truely is a slippery slope can of worms.
how hard is it to get a court order? Allowing this would be akin to police being able to track any car at anytime.
feared undercover officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities
This right here is a justifiable reason IMHO to allow GPS tracking IF they got court order to do so.
On the flipp side the guy is a criminal IN THIS CASE. This case shouldnt set precidence. With new technology should come new legislative powers to allow for privacy. But what politician (dem. or conser.) wants to limit police powers as such and be labled "soft on crime"
-
Do you carry a cellphone? you have an inbedded gps transponder. Do you have a prepaid toll transponder? you have an inbedded gps. do you have a fairly new and fairly expensive car? you have an inbedded gps. welcome to the orwellian nightmare unfolding before our very eyes. Can anyone say Patriot act? :D But don't worry our Gov't loves us and only wants to help, care for and protect us.
-
what a tangled web we weave.....................
the world today is not one of our forefathers..............
do they have the right to bug you or your car just because they think you might have ties to someone doing illegal things ? personaly HELL FRIGGING NO ................
This patriot act and the whole 9/11 this is making Amerika a not free country any more.......................we were founded on other principals... personal freedoms and life liberty and the persuit of happyness.............where did they go to? the average guy/girl is guilty till tey say your not anymore
Wellcome to the the USA United States (under Military and Police CONTROL) of America...................... ....i bid you farwell if you believe the afore mentioned isnt happenng to you , me your mom , your dad, and everyone else............... maybee not yet but its only growing! :confused:
-
If it was a false arrest or a situation where the cops really had no right...I might agree.
....but someone linked to a Hells Angel Meth ring? I think I'd agree that something like that isnt such a bad idea...but i could be wrong
-
The angle I look at it from is that it's just like a bug, as mentioned and also that they are physically installing something on someon's private property without permission.
They have no right to mess with or install something on someone's private property.
-
Before long they will implant biochips in newborns. (To prevent kidnapping) Oh, it's for the SAFETY of the children! You are not against child safety are you? You must be a pervert if you are! A quick bioscan at any public building entrance will ID them and report any illegal substance use or contact, out of bounds travel or curfew violation. Maybe we can implant a remote controlled or preprogrammed taser, too. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
-
They should have flat thrown this one out.
With a warrant. Sure. Without. No.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
If it was a false arrest or a situation where the cops really had no right...I might agree.
....but someone linked to a Hells Angel Meth ring? I think I'd agree that something like that isnt such a bad idea...but i could be wrong
yea that's why I find it hard to beleive they couldnt get a warrent.....UNLESS there's nothin saying they are allowed to do that in the first place.
-
"Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." .....
And that's the rule, fellas. There is no right to privacy if you're out in public, and all surveilence methods are fair game.
You need to retreat on your civil rights campaign to protest infared imaging to see what's going on in private residences- that's an often allowed "probable cause" that busts people for growing dope in spite of its intrusion into ones private property. IMO electronically surveying peoples private property is far more aggregious than electronically following them on public roadways.
-
Also, you guys can push your agendas all you want but that article does not once mention the patriot act.
-
I thought I heard something about those infared scans being prohibited now because they lacked probable cause.
-
Originally posted by rpm
They COULD HAVE followed him, but they did'nt. It's an bug and should be illegal without a warrant. Just because it's cheaper and easier than following established law enforcement procedures does not make it legal. Bad call by the judge. Look for it to be overruled on appeal.
So the police can follow you and manually survail you on public roadways. But should it be illegal to put a GPS transponder on your car to follow you?
What if they are using a nite scope? Can they watch you thru stop light cameras? How about other video survaillence? How about if the use a big ear to hear what you are saying while at a public function? Is it just that the homing device was on his car or is it the technology that is in question?
He had no expectation of privacy while in public. What is fair?
IR scans to "Pull down your curtains" have been outlawed.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway." .....
And that's the rule, fellas. There is no right to privacy if you're out in public, and all surveilence methods are fair game.
You need to retreat on your civil rights campaign to protest infared imaging to see what's going on in private residences- that's an often allowed "probable cause" that busts people for growing dope in spite of its intrusion into ones private property. IMO electronically surveying peoples private property is far more aggregious than electronically following them on public roadways.
Airhead, what about the idea of installing devices on private property without permission?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Is it just that the homing device was on his car or is it the technology that is in question?
It is using an electronic tracking device installed on his personal property without a warrant. It's the lack of a warrant that is the issue, same as wiretapping a phone. You have probable cause, you go to a judge and get a warrant.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Airhead, what about the idea of installing devices on private property without permission?
A car is personal property, not private property. Huge difference.
-
I'm just asking.....I have no clue.
What about personal property?
-
Originally posted by rpm
It is using an electronic tracking device installed on his personal property without a warrant. It's the lack of a warrant that is the issue, same as wiretapping a phone. You have probable cause, you go to a judge and get a warrant.
Wrong, RPM- probable cause isn't required for public survelience. Wiretapping is different because it takes place in your PRIVATE property.
-
Airhead, what about listening in on or planting devices on cell phones? That's not private property.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Airhead, what about listening in on or planting devices on cell phones? That's not private property.
Good point Nuke- if you're digital then you better read your TOS, because everything you say on your cell phone is public knowledge. The earlier analog phones aren't subject to the same rules, BTW.
-
I'm certainly no expert on the subject Airhead, but as I said before it will likely be overturned on appeal because they did not get a warrant. Perhaps you can educate me on previous cases using tracking devices by police.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Good point Nuke- if you're digital then you better read your TOS, because everything you say on your cell phone is public knowledge. The earlier analog phones aren't subject to the same rules, BTW.
I used to work for Bell Atlantic Mobile as a technician, and I do not think you are correct Airhead. Digital or analog doesn't matter. In fact, CDMA ( code division multiple access) is theoretically and practically impossible to intercept and listen in on. Analog is easy to listen in on.
Anyway, digital cell phones in the US still switch to analog when a digital signal is not present
Nobody can listen in on digital calls unless the cell company lets them. And they don't let anyone have that ability without a court order IIRC.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm certainly no expert on the subject Airhead, but as I said before it will likely be overturned on appeal because they did not get a warrant. Perhaps you can educate me on previous cases using tracking devices by police.
I'm not an expert on the subject either, but it's my understanding you have no right to privacy if you're driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway.
We aren't too far away from having micro GPS devices incoded into our license plate stickers- and it's all perfectly legal.
And Solyent Green is people.
-
I think you do have a reasonable right to privacy on a public roadway. That's why police must either have your permission or probable cause to search your vehicle. But like I said, I'm no expert.
-
Yeah, but they can look into your windows and see that .357 on your seat. They don't need a warrant for that.
Looking and seeing that your making a left turn into that potatohouse parking lot, no reasonable right to privacy there.
The judge just figured they were electronically watching the suspect drive down a road.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I used to work for Bell Atlantic Mobile as a technician, and I do not think you are correct Airhead. Digital or analog doesn't matter. In fact, CDMA ( code division multiple access) is theoretically and practically impossible to intercept and listen in on. Analog is easy to listen in on.
Anyway, digital cell phones in the US still switch to analog when a digital signal is not present
Nobody can listen in on digital calls unless the cell company lets them. And they don't let anyone have that ability without a court order IIRC.
Well, the general consesus among the dope dealers up here is that those big walkie talkie 80s phones can't be recorded, so that's what they all use.
Either that or carrier pigeons.
Me, I have a digital phone and I don't care if there's a GPS in my car- I'm not a dope dealer, Hells Angel or an Arab terrorist. I'm just a guy who has to get up in the morning and bust his hump all day, every day to satisfy the demands of the one Government institution that has an interest in me- the IRS.
Prison would be kinder.
-
Well I can see the de bugging industry growing in the future.
-
i think that the greatest danger represented by this type of surveillence is that i is one step closer to total awareness by a system which by all appearances seems to be setting itself up as "separate" than the general populus.
this is prison thinking.
and though i suppose that one could argue philosophically that life in a physical body is a form of imprisonment, there in nothing in my being which finds this type of mentallity even remotely appealling.
but then, i suppose that it can be turned the other way cant it? can i start bugging cop cars?
can i start "surveying" political figures?
-
Interesting. Since nobody has the right to privacy on public roads, can I attach a GPS tracker on the Presidential limo? It's on public roads.
-
im guessing that something just kicked in and started recording this thread immediately upon saying that word.
since i have had to come to terms with that fact, i have begun to use the term
"THE chimp" instead of the "P" word.
i can modify it to...like "THE poop flinging chimp" or "THE red assed lying, going to fight a war for WMD chimp"
or, hey mommy, what is that chimp doing there with his peepee?"
"thats not a peepee billy", she says, "thats his stock portfolio".
in your case, i would have said...i wonder if i could attach a bug to the "poop burning chimpmobile".
all jokes asside.
carnivore was hear way before the patriot act. they just werent able to say where they got it from.
click....recording.
-
There are people being held without even habeus corpus let alone a fair trial and you are worried about GPS tracking?
-
no pei. i am deeply troubled by that.
my belief being that it has been our system of "innocent until proven guilty" that has set us apart from less civilized societies.
i dont think that we can or should impose anything less on others.
it is wrong.
if a person is held. they should be accused immedately and tried publically by a jury of thier peers.
-
I have no problem with it, just get a warrant.
-
well... if they rule on that one then maybe we can get rid of red light and traffic cameras.
lazs
-
Originally posted by LePaul
....but someone linked to a Hells Angel Meth ring? I think I'd agree that something like that isnt such a bad idea...but i could be wrong
:D That little gem of a cover story has been used to the point of hilarity.
You want to do something that otherwise cannot be done legaly or is borderline just use the old "linked to the Hells Angels" line and let the press run with it.
-
boxboy28, FYI we were using this tactic waaay before 911 or the Patriot Act.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Interesting. Since nobody has the right to privacy on public roads, can I attach a GPS tracker on the Presidential limo? It's on public roads.
It depends on the State, here in Michigan the stalking law was just expanded to include placing GPS on cars by private induviduals, it is now a felony, of course it does not apply to government., no warrant needed
shamus
-
Remember when Acme Car Rental tracked and fined a guy for speeding in his rental car?They used GPS to nail him.
A judge ruled it illegal,and ordered restitution paid to over two dozen customers Acme fined via GPS.
I'm no legal expert,so I don't know if there's any relevance or not.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-269388.html?legacy=cnet
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The angle I look at it from is that it's just like a bug, as mentioned and also that they are physically installing something on someon's private property without permission.
They have no right to mess with or install something on someone's private property.
...Amerihater...don't you clowns ever get it, DON'T question the government, you subversives. In case you haven't noticed, we are AT WAR...terrorists are EVERYWHERE. We HAVE to protect ourselves...
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...
Nuke, you might as well be an insurgent, with your thread of questioning. In this time of war, the government has a right to QUESTION EVERYTHING. I always knew you would work against our government.
You should be shot for even THINKING about questioning the government....
-
Originally posted by Pei
There are people being held without even habeus corpus let alone a fair trial and you are worried about GPS tracking?
Source please? hell just a name would do?
-
The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."
Bold and Regressive Steps to Violate Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11
* Pressured Congress to hurriedly enact his legislation, the USA Patriot Act, which gave astonishing powers to federal agencies:
o The Act dramatically increases the government’s surveillance, search-and-seizure and wiretapping authority.
The Act greatly expanded government policing powers, even in cases unrelated to terrorism.
The Act allows for the sharing of secret information on American citizens among federal agencies.
* During Congressional testimony, asserted that anyone who raised concerns about his actions would “aid terrorists” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies,” statements which are antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment right to dissent.
* Authorized DOJ officials to monitor the discussions that attorneys have with clients who are in federal custody, including those detained, but not charged with a criminal offense in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
* Rounded up and imprisoned over 1200 men of Middle Eastern descent based largely on pretextual immigration violations and refused to disclose their identity and location and the reason for their detention. The detainees have been denied fundamental due process rights.
* Sought to question roughly 8,000 men of Middle Eastern descent, who are legal residents of the U.S., a flagrant form of racial profiling.
* Imposed a policy of selectively enforcing deportation orders against men from Middle Eastern countries.
* Formed regulations that deny federal compensation to the partners and non-biological children of lesbian, gay and bisexual victims of September 11.
* Helped draft the presidential order creating secret military tribunals which bypasses the U.S. court system and contains significant due process violations. Allows for the imposition of the death penalty.
* Reversed the presumption of openness that is an underpinning the Freedom of Information Act by supporting agency decisions to withhold information if there is a sound legal basis for doing so, thereby rejecting the Reno position that information ought to be released under FOIA unless such release would be harmful.
* Indicated that he is considering relaxing domestic guidelines that prohibit the federal law enforcement agencies from spying on First Amendment-protected activities.
* Has called for the use of local police for enforcement of immigration laws.
* Has asked Neighborhood Watch groups to work with the federal government to identify terrorists.
* Has asked local law enforcement to submit proposals seeking federal funds to expand their capacity to identify and spy on suspected terrorists in local communities.
* Initiated a project in August of 2002 called Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) that would recruit and train 1 million volunteers (including postal workers, utility personnel and the like) in 10 cities who would be encouraged to report suspicious terrorist activity.
* Directed all federal prosecutors not to agree to judges’ downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines except in rare cases. In addition, Ashcroft requires that prosecutors, within 14 days, report when a judge imposes a downward departure from the guidelines.
* Continues to misrepresent and misled the American public about the scope and impact of the USA Patriot Act, through his Patriot Act Tour. Ashcroft will visit 16 states and 18 cities for three weeks during his Patriot Act Tour to shore up support for the legislation that was passed in October 2001 as well as laying the groundwork for the introduction of the Victory Act.
* Encouraged the 93 US Attorneys to lobby members of Congress who voted for an amendment that would prohibit DOJ funds to be used to enforcement “sneak and peak” warrants. The US Attorneys were also asked to turn out law enforcement officers and the citizens to community meetings around the country as well as write op-eds in local papers in support of the USA Patriot Act. This request was made to coincide with Ashcroft’s Patriot Act Tour.
* Further restricted DOJ’s centralized control over plea-bargaining of cases by federal prosecutors.
from http://www.aclu.org
-
Originally posted by JB88
The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."
Bold and Regressive Steps to Violate Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11
* Pressured Congress to hurriedly enact his legislation, the USA Patriot Act, which gave astonishing powers to federal agencies:
o The Act dramatically increases the government’s surveillance, search-and-seizure and wiretapping authority.
The Act greatly expanded government policing powers, even in cases unrelated to terrorism.
The Act allows for the sharing of secret information on American citizens among federal agencies.
* During Congressional testimony, asserted that anyone who raised concerns about his actions would “aid terrorists” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies,” statements which are antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment right to dissent.
* Authorized DOJ officials to monitor the discussions that attorneys have with clients who are in federal custody, including those detained, but not charged with a criminal offense in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
* Rounded up and imprisoned over 1200 men of Middle Eastern descent based largely on pretextual immigration violations and refused to disclose their identity and location and the reason for their detention. The detainees have been denied fundamental due process rights.
* Sought to question roughly 8,000 men of Middle Eastern descent, who are legal residents of the U.S., a flagrant form of racial profiling.
* Imposed a policy of selectively enforcing deportation orders against men from Middle Eastern countries.
* Formed regulations that deny federal compensation to the partners and non-biological children of lesbian, gay and bisexual victims of September 11.
* Helped draft the presidential order creating secret military tribunals which bypasses the U.S. court system and contains significant due process violations. Allows for the imposition of the death penalty.
* Reversed the presumption of openness that is an underpinning the Freedom of Information Act by supporting agency decisions to withhold information if there is a sound legal basis for doing so, thereby rejecting the Reno position that information ought to be released under FOIA unless such release would be harmful.
* Indicated that he is considering relaxing domestic guidelines that prohibit the federal law enforcement agencies from spying on First Amendment-protected activities.
* Has called for the use of local police for enforcement of immigration laws.
* Has asked Neighborhood Watch groups to work with the federal government to identify terrorists.
* Has asked local law enforcement to submit proposals seeking federal funds to expand their capacity to identify and spy on suspected terrorists in local communities.
* Initiated a project in August of 2002 called Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) that would recruit and train 1 million volunteers (including postal workers, utility personnel and the like) in 10 cities who would be encouraged to report suspicious terrorist activity.
* Directed all federal prosecutors not to agree to judges’ downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines except in rare cases. In addition, Ashcroft requires that prosecutors, within 14 days, report when a judge imposes a downward departure from the guidelines.
* Continues to misrepresent and misled the American public about the scope and impact of the USA Patriot Act, through his Patriot Act Tour. Ashcroft will visit 16 states and 18 cities for three weeks during his Patriot Act Tour to shore up support for the legislation that was passed in October 2001 as well as laying the groundwork for the introduction of the Victory Act.
* Encouraged the 93 US Attorneys to lobby members of Congress who voted for an amendment that would prohibit DOJ funds to be used to enforcement “sneak and peak” warrants. The US Attorneys were also asked to turn out law enforcement officers and the citizens to community meetings around the country as well as write op-eds in local papers in support of the USA Patriot Act. This request was made to coincide with Ashcroft’s Patriot Act Tour.
* Further restricted DOJ’s centralized control over plea-bargaining of cases by federal prosecutors.
from http://www.aclu.org
that's great an all JB88 considering you don't have an alternative and would like to go back to the pre 911 way of doing business but my question wasnt about the patriot act it was who is being held without habeus corpus?
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Remember when Acme Car Rental tracked and fined a guy for speeding in his rental car?They used GPS to nail him.
A judge ruled it illegal,and ordered restitution paid to over two dozen customers Acme fined via GPS.
I'm no legal expert,so I don't know if there's any relevance or not.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-269388.html?legacy=cnet
There's no real relation between the two. The courts ruled that the rental agency had no authority to fine people for exceding the speed limit. There wasn't any real issue with "invasion of privacy". If the drivers had taken the car somewhere the rental agency had deemed off limits, they would have been correct in fining them.
-
a good question.
i was simply defining the danger.
-
Rental agencies has the GPS installed into the car already. I suppose it is also mentioned somewhere on the contract paper.
...but cops installing a tracking device on your car? thats same as bugging your phone or installing surveillance equiptment in your house.
The house is private from inside and nobody has the right to put the bug on your window or keep watching through the window everything what you do. The area outside can be public. Same thing with the car - it just moves.
-
The car is not just like a house. If you don't believe me, try putting your house on public property.
This bug did not evesdrop on conversation. It did nothing to invade the privacy inside of the vehicle... it simply tracked the vehicle. As a rule, there is not a warant needed to watch where someone is driving their car.
It does seem like something I'd like to see a warrant for. I don't like the idea of the police installing these on cars at will.
Basically, I can see how the a warrant isn't required, but I'm not a bit supportive of it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The car is not just like a house. If you don't believe me, try putting your house on public property.
This bug did not evesdrop on conversation. It did nothing to invade the privacy inside of the vehicle... it simply tracked the vehicle. As a rule, there is not a warant needed to watch where someone is driving their car.
It does seem like something I'd like to see a warrant for. I don't like the idea of the police installing these on cars at will.
Basically, I can see how the a warrant isn't required, but I'm not a bit supportive of it.
Warrant isn't either needed to overhear discussion, but it is needed to bug the phone.
Warrant isn't needed to watch a car or look inside through the window, but it is needed if you search the car without having seen anything inside which would give a reason to search without a warrant.
Therefore in my opinion a warrant should be required when installing devices on someones property without the owners knowledge.
I don't know how it is done in USA, but in Finland a warrant of some kind is needed to locate someones cellphone from the phone company. I have a reason to believe it is the same also in USA...?
All the time they can be sitting at a public place.
Therefore I can't really see any reasons supportive to the unwarranted GPS tracking of cars, especially by planting bugs on the car which weren't already installed by the owner.