Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/thre

[Paxil]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

That should be allowed by the court, really?

You do know many other countries laugh at our insistence to protect criminals. We go out of our way to discourage police from certain activities but in other countries they use any evidence and discipline the police. Makes more sense to me.

As far as it being used... GPS doesn't say who was in the car... it isn't proof of that... it would have to be combined with other evidence to put a particular person in the car.

 

[bodyman5001]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

You do know many other countries laugh at our insistence to protect criminals. We go out of our way to discourage police from certain activities but in other countries they use any evidence and discipline the police. Makes more sense to me.

As far as it being used... GPS doesn't say who was in the car... it isn't proof of that... it would have to be combined with other evidence to put a particular person in the car.

You do know that I personally laugh at people who still live in this country yet don't value the freedoms that we have (once had). I also laugh at other countries that laugh at us. I laugh because most of their citizens would rather live here.

You just made another great point for ME. The GPS doesn't say who was in the car. The cops could steal the car at night and drive it around planting drugs in places. I am sure they wouldn't though, cops never do anything wrong.

 

[bodyman5001]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

You really want people jamming you car navigation device?

Yes, I really do. I just don't have a navigation device unless you count my brain. If I want to go somewhere I find out the address and if I don't know where it is I look it up on a map and then drive directly to it like people used to do before technology rendered thought useless.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

Fuck that shit.

 

[MARIS61]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

You do know many other countries laugh at our insistence to protect criminals. We go out of our way to discourage police from certain activities but in other countries they use any evidence and discipline the police. Makes more sense to me.

China kills people for speaking out against the government.

The Congo government rapes and murders it's own people just to keep them afraid of authority.

That shit make sense to you also?

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

I disagree that a person has the reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, but the guy's jeep and a person's body are private property.

In public places, you may be video taped by multiple cameras, and I don't see any reason to stop putting up (security) cameras. And the police can look at those video tapes, as we see on TV all the time (video of some guy robbing a 7-11 store or whatever).

The police can follow anyone they want in public places. They can follow you as you drive or walk down the street. There's never been any issue with that.

Attaching a GPS device is a very different thing, as it does violate property rights. The car/jeep is not public property. A warrant is clearly required by the constitution for several reasons:

5th amendment in part reads:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


(That's three reasons right there!)

The 4th amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The car/jeep is one of the guy's effects.

Of course, there are cases where a warrant is not immediately required, as in the case of wiretapping terrorists' phones.

Go Obama!

When Obama loses, we all win.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...story/2012-01-23/supreme-court-GPS/52754354/1

Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking

Civil libertarians and defense lawyers praised the ruling in United States v. Jones. The "Fourth Amendment must continue to protect against government intrusions even in the face of modern technological surveillance tools," said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which was among the groups that sided with Jones. The Justice Department, which had appealed a lower court's decision requiring a warrant for GPS tracking, had no public response to the decision.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the main opinion for the court, said "the government's physical intrusion on the Jeep" to obtain information constitutes a search. He based his decision on the original roots of Fourth Amendment protection for property against government intrusions. Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

[jlprk]

Re: Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’ Read More http://www.wired.com/

I only read the topic line, and I knew right away what this thread is about.

http://www.eonline.com/news/375125/...-clip?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories