May 10, 2009

Are the police free to attach a GPS device to your car to monitor your whereabouts?

Without your knowledge and without a warrant? An appeals court in Madison, Wisconsin says yes.

The idea is that it's not a search or seizure, because it only lets the police see what they would see if they followed you around watching you. Yes, the car might go into a garage and out of public view, but someone standing outside would get the same information, that the car was in the garage until it emerged.

91 comments:

traditionalguy said...

OK, I get it. Stalking by a police person is by definition not a crime, while stalking by anyone else is a crime.

rhhardin said...

It seems like an expectation of privacy might come in at some level of appeal.

1jpb said...

Wouldn't it be fun for the police to use these to determine how fast we're going? This could result in a lot of speeding tickets. I would assume the relatively inexpensive GPS boxes could easily pay for themselves.

Then, if we could feed data from traffic signals and GPS locators into a computer we could have the equivalent of traffic light cameras at every light and intersection.

Awesome.

Like the "conservatives" told us re electronic surveillance w/o warrants; if you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear from surveillance w/o warrants.

PoNyman said...

Are they only allowed to tag as many cars as the police have available man power or can they just get it over with and tag everyone?

rhhardin said...

I recommend everybody take flying lessons starting at 15, so they get over car craze before it starts.

Then almost nobody will speed.

There will be lots of citations for flying low however.

Simon Kenton said...

A court-mandated ankle bracelet has identifying information on it; you call when you find one that has been cut off, and someone retrieves it, muttering sadly about how the person is headed into the can. I wonder about these non-authorized surveillance units. Do you have to tolerate it if you find it? Will you be arrested for destruction of government property if it isn't IDed and you take a hammer to it, or toss it into a dumpster? Do you have the right to put it on a cop car? Do you have the right to put one of your own on a cop car? Are you obliged to return it to the local police station so they can plant it on you more subtly next time?

Palladian said...

"The idea is that it's not a search or seizure, because it only lets the police see what they would see if they followed you around watching you."

Yes, and why not install cameras in our bedrooms, because it only lets the police see what they would see if they had just finished fucking you. And why not let the State put cameras in our digestive tracts to monitor what we eat, because it only lets them see what they would see if they had inserted a scope up your anus.

I love this little game! Let's keep playing it until we're a husk of a once-great nation, like England.

Ralph said...

How is it that the court can have held that the "police can attach GPS . . . without obtaining search warrants" when, in the case at hand, the "police obtained a warrant" (quoting the Chicago Tribune)? Am I the only one left who is interested in the metaphysics of holdings? Or does the Wisconsin constitution have a looser 'case or controversy' requirement?

rhhardin said...

Get a havaheart trap and transplant the GPS device to a raccoon. Release him a few miles away.

Palladian said...

"Like the "conservatives" told us re electronic surveillance w/o warrants;"

Your man is continuing the program, and is certainly going to expand it, so why don't you shut the fuck up and take it with a smile on your face? Hope and change and all that.

Trooper York said...

Why would anyone want to attach a gps to garage mahal? We all know he is going to serve to the left anyway.

You mean he can get a GPS but he can't get a tag?

The terrorists have won.

Jason (the commenter) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason (the commenter) said...

1jpb : Like the "conservatives" told us re electronic surveillance w/o warrants

Thanks for the scare quotes, you really hit the nail on the head with that one! I don't know what country those guys are "conservative" in, but it sure isn't America.

somefeller said...

Outrageous. Glad to see the ACLU is on the case to fight this, according to the article. Makes me glad to be a member. Perhaps others who oppose this verdict should send in a donation to the Wisconsin chapter.

Frankly, this verdict makes me think of the whole absurdity regarding a lot of search-and-seizure and surveillance law, to the extent it bases its premises on expectations of privacy that are increasingly undermined by advances in surveillance technology and the idea that everything that practically happens outside your house is not necessarily presumed to be private and protected.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Your man is continuing the program, and is certainly going to expand it, so why don't you shut the fuck up and take it with a smile on your face?

I know many of you think this is "intelligent" and all, but I think it's the dumbest stuff I've ever read. There are elections coming in a few years and if former Obama supporters would like to air their grievances I'm all for it. In fact I would like to politely welcome them to the world of Conservatism and hope they have a rewarding and pleasant time here. I know many liberals say we are ill mannered monsters, but that isn't true. I apologize if the overreaction of a few have given you the wrong impression.

As for all the recriminations I am hearing: if any of this bile needs to said, it's in a hole in the middle of the woods somewhere. Saying it in front of nice people like 1jpb or Zach is the same as begging them to vote for Obama again.

We should think about trying to make friends instead of enemies. The world would be a much better place if we did.

PatCA said...

Hey, why not put GPS on cars and see where we are going...er, how many miles we drive?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_go_co/us_mileage_tax

Michael in Fort Worth said...

Seems to me that the judges got it right. They ruled based on the law. Noting that the results were somewhat disturbing, they left it to the elected legislators to fix, rather than just making law based on their own policy preferences. That's the way things are supposed to work.

Cedarford said...

1jpb - "Like the "conservatives" told us re electronic surveillance w/o warrants; if you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear from surveillance w/o warrants.".



I wasn't aware that FDR was a conservative. Yet FDR had every cable, international phone call, and shortwave radio transmission crossing US Borders to "dangerous" areas in Europe and Asia monitored by 1939. Well before we started in the war ourselves. Then once war started, he opened every piece of mail sent to or from the USA, as well as phone messages and cables sent from Hawaii and south of the Mexican border - all without warrant.

But I think there is a big leap from using a blanket search for enemy agents calling to and from the USA that cannot be used in criminal court except when enough evidence of enemy involvement triggers legal collection of evidence used in civilian criminal court or a military commission trial - to intrusions on common citizen's privacy.

No doubt triggering the long dark night of fascism - from the loss of liberties which the nation cannot recover from - not after WWII, not now..
==================
traditionalguy said...
OK, I get it. Stalking by a police person is by definition not a crime, while stalking by anyone else is a crime.
.

Yeah, pretty much. Which is why I would love to see a private taxpayers group in Wisconsin weld some GPS devices on cop cars to monitor their movements when a cop is assigned to patrol - and monitor there locales against 9/11 calls, any unexplained stops, and locations of donut shoppes - in the name of taxpayer's looking for public servant waste and featherbedding..

Just wait for the cops squawking.."you're treating us like mere civilians ...Or worse, like parolees or home detention people required by a court to wear a GPS cuff!"

1jpb said...

Palladian,

Actually, the Terrorist Surveillance Program which was invented by the Liberty Loving Bush administration (just like you) was shut down, and the current warrantless regimes are restricted, and they rely on FISC and Congress. That is, the Bush-is-King (and he is simultaneously the bringer of Liberty at home and abroad) way is dead.

Perhaps, you can get us all excited (again) by telling us some more about how you (and Carrie Prejean) love liberty--in the abstract rallying cry sense, as goes w/o saying.

Buford Gooch said...

Michael in Fort Worth has it right. The law says it's OK to do this, and the court upheld what the law says. The judges thought the outcome was bad, and suggested that the legislature change it. Oh, that all judges thought that way.

mdulakthomson said...

Ah, PatCA beat me to it. Is it OK for the government to mandate that all cars be trackable at all times, so that it's possible to determine how many miles' worth of wear you're putting on the roads? Apparently gas taxes have hit the usual obstacle in the way of any tax ostensibly designed to decrease the behavior taxed: They're working well enough that the crafty citizens are, er, changing their behavior, and the juicy tax revenue is dwindling. Not only has the price of gas dropped precipitously, but the people, damn them, are using less gas per mile. So now, naturally, some are talking about taxing miles rather than gallons.

And GPS is really the only way to implement this. I suppose we could just require this data collection of everyone with a car, and then get warrants whenever we think you, personally, have been using your car criminally. Everyone feel better now?

Palladian said...

"Saying it in front of nice people like 1jpb or Zach is the same as begging them to vote for Obama again."

Nice people? I don't think so.

They both make the broadest, most nefarious assumptions about me and my political leanings and beliefs and I'm supposed to be nice to them and try to coddle them into my "corner"?

No thanks.

"Actually, the Terrorist Surveillance Program which was invented by the Liberty Loving Bush administration (just like you) was shut down, and the current warrantless regimes are restricted, and they rely on FISC and Congress..."

Blah blah blah. Symbolism without substance. Obama wants to retain those powers. He lied to you, and you stand there with your shit-eating grin. I never supported the warrantless wiretapping program. But don't let that fact stop you from shoveling shit for your Philosopher-King, Lord and Master.

P"erhaps, you can get us all excited (again) by telling us some more about how you (and Carrie Prejean) love liberty--in the abstract rallying cry sense, as goes w/o saying."

Oh go fuck yourself. You and the other State bitches who comment here have already shown your disdain for freedom and those who aren't ashamed to speak in praise of it. You've also shown that all your supposed "liberal" love of open-mindedness, freedom, dissent, and idealism is all another crock of shit. Your support for those concepts is limited to when it serves your "team's" needs and desires. But if it's not the correct kind of idealism or the correct brand of "freedom", you mock and bitch and whine and sneer as if talking about political concepts abstractly and broadly and idealistically was the stupidest thing you could imagine. But it's not going to work. People like me aren't going to shut up. And there's a lot of us out there and it scares the shit out of you. As I said yesterday, this has absolutely nothing to do with meaningless distinctions of "right vs. left" or "liberal vs. conservative". It has to do with freedom. Everyone who loves that concept is welcome. If the idea of freedom seems "abstract" or "silly" to you, then I'm sorry for your lack of imagination and lack of spirit.

And save your bullshit about roads and military defense and all that. I'm not calling for complete anarchy, just that people not forget that freedom is a precious and fragile thing, and once taken away, in small measure or large, is never relinquished without a struggle.

Anyway, sneer away. It's all you seem capable of.

ark said...

If I were to attach a GPS unit to a police car, would I be charged with a crime? After all, I'd only be obtaining information that I could obtain anyway by following the police car around.

Or is the idea that there is information that, although public, is illegal for citizens to obtain even though it is legal for the police to obtain it?

Bob said...

I'm glad to see people have their shorts in a knot over this. But if you're driving a late model GM vehicle you've been monitored since the day you drove off the lot. OnStar. Do you all think pixydust allows an OnStar operator to determine what your location is when the airbags deploy.

Oh, all modern vehicles have data logging which keeps about the last 10-30 seconds of data (speed, aceleration, etc) on a vehicle. Very nice for the accident investigators.

And anyone who has a blackberry or cell phone made in last few years. Well you have GPS tracking too. Otherwise geeks would just use old-fashioned signal analysis to determine your location after-the-fact. This has been going on for a long time, its just taken a while to get into the courts.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

If that's the case then, if the police can do it, then why not a private citizen? What absolves law enforcement from from the same we as citizens could employ under criminal penalty? Where would does this fucking end? I realize when you go into public there is a reasonable expectation that privacy is somewhat lacking, but my freedom of mobility or anyone else's does not preclude that we have to submit our comings and goings via GPS or any other electronic data if we are not felons, under parole, under mandated house arrest, or any other legally binding court ordered servitude.

It's already bad enough that the idea of private property has gone the way of the dodo bird, that awareness of violations of at least a modicum of civil rights doesn't occur to them while they are committing them and leaving it to you to fend for yourself and prove them in a court of law at your own expense after the fact. But that now police want to appropriate my private property in the form of my car to attach a device to monitor me and my whereabouts as they see fit without knowledge or a warrant is and should be Americana and wholly unconstitutional.

Oh, for those lefties that are going to play gotcha by using the nanny nanny neener neener we told you so argument of if you have nothing to hide, etc. etc. listen you shallow thinkers, this has nothing to do with having anything to hide, this has to do with my right as a presumed private citizen that is a sovereign entity unto himself/herself unless told otherwise. Yes, we are governed by our laws and we as sovereign citizens are obliged to obey those laws, but as a citizen my rights fall above those of of law enforcement, they are the ones obliged to observe my rights and not violate them and this is one of those instances. It's not about having anything to hide, it's about presuming from their onus that I don't whether they like it or not.

somefeller said...

Palladian - once again, could you cite some examples of freedoms that have been taken away from you as a result of Obama's policies, or would be taken away from you should certain of his policies be enacted? Specifics, please.

Methadras said...

" 1jpb said...

Palladian,

Actually, the Terrorist Surveillance Program which was invented by the Liberty Loving Bush administration (just like you) was shut down, and the current warrantless regimes are restricted, and they rely on FISC and Congress."

Typical BDS bilge. The Terrorist Surveillance Program still followed Constitutionality just like the Patriot Act. You simply choose to ignore those facts. It was about capturing terrorists, foreign or domestic and their cells. Grow up already, this argument is false and faulty or did you conveniently forget things like Carnivore or Echelon which by the way started under Clinton and are still active?

Palladian said...

"Palladian - once again, could you cite some examples of freedoms that have been taken away from you as a result of Obama's policies, or would be taken away from you should certain of his policies be enacted? Specifics, please."

I'm not, nor was I ever, talking about specifics. It's a little rhetorical trick I learned from the President.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian : They both make the broadest, most nefarious assumptions about me and my political leanings and beliefs...

I wonder what assumptions they had about you that were confirmed by your manner.

Nice people? I don't think so...

Blah blah blah... shit-eating grin... shoveling shit... Oh go fuck yourself... You and the other State bitches... crock of shit... mock and bitch and whine and sneer... stupidest thing... it scares the shit out of you... bullshit...

They are worlds nicer than Palladian.

I'm supposed to be nice to them and try to coddle them into my "corner"?

They are trying to be in your corner; they are agreeing with your side; you don't need to do anything. But instead you have a fit because of something they said or did in the past.

People like me aren't going to shut up.

Yes, well good luck finding people to listen.

somefeller said...

Palladian says: "I'm not, nor was I ever, talking about specifics. It's a little rhetorical trick I learned from the President."

Nonresponsive answer. Do you actually have anything substantive to back up your rhetoric? It's easy to claim one is fighting for freedom versus the forces of slavery in the abstract. College-town coffeehouses are filled with people who claim that, in one form or another. Such people are tiresome and are rightly dismissed by serious people. So, do you have any examples of lost or soon-to-be-lost freedoms you can cite? If this is a twilight struggle between freedom and slavery, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with some specifics.

Incidentally, Obama did have more than a few specific examples of policies that he mentioned during the campaign. You may not have liked them, and it remains to be seen whether he will live up to all or most of his promises, but the argument that all Obama had was a few slogans is a false one. Again, cheap rhetoric, easily refuted and dismissed.

Peter V. Bella said...

hey, somefeller,
What freedoms did you lose under the las administration again? Can you cite some speciifc civil liberty that was lost to you?

1jpb said...

Palladian,

You certainly aren't taking about specifics. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious. Why do you think you like to pontificate from ten thousand feet?

It seems very important for you to mistakenly (and w/o a shred of evidence) believe that BHO can't wait to restart the TSP. And, you have a self-acknowledged record of voting for a party that exalts as one of its core principles the goal of limiting your liberty because you're gay.

Have you ever considered that you get excited and abstract, not because you're so brilliant that you don't need to bother w/ practical details and reality, but that your cognitive dissonance ramps up your volume and abstraction (and angry writing) as you cast about for others to blame for the extreme failures of the (proverbial) bed company you keep?

As long as you stay at ten thousand feet and talk about loving liberty you're perfectly welcome in the R tent, you sound just like Carrie Prejean. But, if you drop a bit and ask for some personal liberty to love, then you don't fit anymore. If you drop a bit and oppose bringing Liberty to the world w/ our military, then you don't fit anymore. If you drop a bit and oppose TSP, then you don't fit anymore.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know. So stay up there, and stay angry about it. I'll understand.

save_the_rustbelt said...

I'm watching the movie "Heat" as I work and the DeNiro gang put the cops tracking devices on city buses - nice touch.

RH - you are bad, I like that.

The GPS on every car will come as a means of taxation, with assurances the information will be used for nothing else, but then somebody with a subpoena will get void the assurance and everyone will be tracked, by the liberals no less.

madawaskan said...

Jason-

Let's see the debate started with ZPS telling Palladian that he didn't have balls and ends with ZPS claiming that he is being unfairly picked on-this is after maybe a year of ZPS sniping and taking potshots.

The most recent being that somehow Clarence Thomas doesn't count as a black person or "whatever"...

No explanation he just trolls that particular thread.

And he still brings up Palin-*shocker* I'm not a Palin fan but the way she was attacked by Liberals was abnormal-yet that's something that Liberals here refuse to give one inch on-and again I really did not like her as the VP pick, or the strategy.

Oh and btw-this is a subject that is brought up by Liberals still.

Even though they've won everything in sight.

The thread sort of ends with ZPS taking his ball and going home-doubly ironic because he is making false claims about Palladian being "ball less" and also asserting that he knew that Palladain didn't vote.

Then ZPS tells Palladian "to move" if he doesn't like NYC and later claims that he ZPS votes Democrat because he has superior empathy for others.

Note how well Beth is taking to that "move" compassion blinded to the reality that it is what ZPS expressed to Palladian.

The logic that people who won the House, Senate and Executive that still bring up Palin can be swayed by "niceties" well that just isn't logic.

Enjoy the "win". No they cannot they still wallow in-creepiness.

somefeller said...

Peter - I never claimed that opposing the Bush Administration was an existential struggle between freedom and slavery, as Palladian has, to much applause at this website. I just claimed it was a struggle against incompetence, ignorance and venality. In other words, just another day at the office for the good guys. And I suspect a lot of Republicans would agree with me on that, now that the need to defend a President of their Party has passed. But, nice try at attempting to change the subject.

But, if you want to look at some specific bad acts of the prior administration, you can read this book. In any case, my question still stands.

1jpb said...

But, buy it from Althouse's Amazon link. She gets a bit, and it won't cost you more.

somefeller said...

Or, you can listen to the book I mentioned on your iPod or in your car, as I notice that the link I inserted goes to the audio book version of that title.

madawaskan said...

And another thing-really go look back at that thread -ZPS isn't being unfairly ganged up on or picked on-

it isn't anymore than on another thread or not 1/5th what Ann puts up with herself.

Yet the most uncharitable nefarious motives are being attributed to Ann here and behind her back at Trooper's.

Hence Ann saying link damn it!

Jason (the commenter) said...

madawaskan,

This is the first thing Zach posted:

"Umm, regarding the polar bears: It's just as bad now that Obama is doing it. Worse, even."

Then Palladian attacked him. There was no debate going on, just a personal attack.

John Lynch said...

It's NOT the same because the technology allows the police to track far more people than they otherwise would be able to. They can't put a full-time tail on everyone they'd like, but a GPS transmitter is a lot easier.

That increases the total amount of surveillance the police can do, and that's a decrease in our liberty.

madawaskan said...

Jason-

Well I'm talking about the discussion that Ann highlighted.

The starting point of that.

But I also refer you back in time past the Polar bear discussion.

You are picking but one example in a whole timeline of events-the one most easy to paint Palladian as the devil with-not fair-sorry.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm glad to see people have their shorts in a knot over this. But if you're driving a late model GM vehicle you've been monitored since the day you drove off the lot. OnStar. Do you all think pixydust allows an OnStar operator to determine what your location is when the airbags deploy.

Oh, all modern vehicles have data logging which keeps about the last 10-30 seconds of data (speed, aceleration, etc) on a vehicle. Very nice for the accident investigators.

And anyone who has a blackberry or cell phone made in last few years. Well you have GPS tracking too.

The newest car that I drive is a 2002 vehicle without OnStar. The rest of our vehicles are 1972, 1971,1968 and 1954. Classic restored and hot rodded cars and trucks They don't require computers to run. Don't fall under the California Nazi smog requirements. We can work on them ourselves and it's easy to find parts and after market parts.

I don't use a cell phone. No need for one, plus there is zero reception in my area.

I'd just like to see somebody come and try to force me to put GPS in my vehicles.

It is just more and more government intrusion into our lives. What next. Implanted computer GPS tracking devices inserted when we are born. Just think how easy it would be to know where we all are at anytime, anywhere. Sure would save the government the trouble. /sarcasm

Lem said...

Driving is a privilege not a constitutional right.

Everyone needs a license to drive.

That license imposes on drivers all kinds of limitations hinging upon, of all thing, public safety.

I think some of you are a little paranoid.

madawaskan said...

They have a long history- and Palladian took the time to explain that aspect in about his second or third comment on that particular thread.

I'm seconding that observation.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Driving is a privilege not a constitutional right.

Everyone needs a license to drive.

That license imposes on drivers all kinds of limitations hinging upon, of all thing, public safety.

True. The government needs to be assured that I, the driver, know the rules of the road and am competent to be able to handle the vehicle that I plan to drive. They also have the right to make sure that the vehicle that I am driving is safe and conforms to the general standards of that type of vehicle. This is to protect the rest of the public and ensure safety on the highways.

However, they have no right to know exactly where I am driving, when I am driving, how many miles I am driving.

It is none of the government's business.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

1jbp: Like the "conservatives" told us re electronic surveillance w/o warrants; if you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear from surveillance w/o warrants..

More lies from the Left.

What we said was that POTUS has a right to gather warfighting intelligence to prevent another attack, and that such evidence should not be used in a courtroom.

Like internet communications between two foreign terrorists that happen to cross over a server based in America.

But keep spinning your mythology.

Lem said...

....they have no right to know exactly where I am driving, when I am driving, how many miles I am driving.

The census keeps a lot of information that.. I dont know if "they have a right to".. but they still do.

Btw. When we speak of "the government" sometimes we make it sound as though it was a foreign entity, that it wasn't made of average Americans.
I admit, I'm guilty of it myself.

Michael Hasenstab said...

Huh? Why would the police (either the ones with Sting or the ones with uniforms) want to attach Gachary Paul Sire to a car?

The cars (either the ones with Ric Ocasek or the ones with steering wheels) would most certainly notice, and, pfffft!, the ruse is blown.

Besides, if you put a Gachary Paul Sire on my cars, it only tells you where my cars is. What if I go out the doors (either the ones with Jim Morrison or the ones with hinges and knobs)?

It sounds (either the one with Julie Andrews or the the one that vibes my tympanics) like a dumb (add your own references here) idea.

That was oregano on the left-over pizza, hey?

Methadras said...

"Jason (the commenter) said...

madawaskan,

This is the first thing Zach posted:

"Umm, regarding the polar bears: It's just as bad now that Obama is doing it. Worse, even."

Then Palladian attacked him. There was no debate going on, just a personal attack."

Kitchen seems hot, the door is open for you to walk through to cool down elsewhere. This is a tough crowd. Sometimes people come out swinging. That's life, if you are looking for fairness then I think you might have come to the wrong place. I'm just saying.

Methadras said...

"Lem said...

Driving is a privilege not a constitutional right.

Everyone needs a license to drive.

That license imposes on drivers all kinds of limitations hinging upon, of all thing, public safety.

I think some of you are a little paranoid."

Lem, how about if I walked or rode a bicycle? It isn't about that driving is a privilege. I already know that, but what this about is the freedom, if not the total right to go where I wish without being scrutinized or followed regardless of the method of transportation. Much less to have law enforcement use the proclamation that because I am in public therefore my publicity gives them an implicit right to follow me wherever I go. That's total horseshit.

Jason (the commenter) said...

madawaskan : But I also refer you back in time past the Polar bear discussion.

You are picking but one example in a whole timeline of events-the one most easy to paint Palladian as the devil with-not fair-sorry.
I got that example from the polar bear discussion.

And the attack in this thread is a second example, as if one instance of what Palladian is doing is fine. It is not.

madawaskan : They have a long history- and Palladian took the time to explain that aspect in about his second or third comment on that particular thread.

I think you're talking about this:

I tend to tool my rhetoric to suit the commenter. Commenters who approach discussions with a vitriolic, sarcastic or dismissive tone will receive a similarly vitriolic, sarcastic and dismissive reply in kind.

These people had words with him in the past, so now, even when they are agreeing with him he's going to attack them? That's stupid. Palladian is carrying water for Obama. He is Obama's biggest supporter on this blog (sorry trolls).

If anyone supported Obama on this blog is thinking of changing their mind, Palladian is going to smack them down. That's what he's doing. And it's not because he loves freedom, it's because he loves his own sense of pride that they injured.

Methadras said...

"Lem said...

Btw. When we speak of "the government" sometimes we make it sound as though it was a foreign entity, that it wasn't made of average Americans.
I admit, I'm guilty of it myself."

Lem, the government as of right now is a foreign entity. It's basically the bureaucratic equivalent of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Ever growing and wanting to grow more at our expense. I'm not only guilt of treating the government this way, but I prefer that it remain that way too. The government is rarely my friend and even when it is, it's usually a fair-weather friend at that.

madawaskan said...

Jason-I was responding to Methadras here but I'll refer you to it-

Ya-cripes sake I hate to keep bitchin' but Liberals have all kinds of outlets, they've got blogs that Conservatives can't even begin to post on, they've got movies, Hollywood, every damn tv show, every late night talk show, almost all the comedians,about every news outlet, even the damn fashion magazines and Palladian has to be harangued here for letting some steam blow.

Again I really don't think ZPS is going o be blown over in the face of all of that "evidence" that he absorbs daily by Palladian being nice to him.

And sorry but I don't think accusing ZPS of wanting to lick Obama's armpits is all that evil.

It's kind of twisted funny.

Here is another thing-could you so easily be swayed from your philosophical beliefs that mean comments on a thread would change how you voted?

Or nice comments?

madawaskan said...

Shoot in short form I just think Palladian is frustrated and he has a damn right to be.

Lem said...

..this about is the freedom, if not the total right to go where I wish without being scrutinized or followed regardless of the method of transportation.

I dont see how a GPS would jeopardize anyones freedom to go anywhere they want.

Our reaction seems more out of a sense of preventing this potential power from some day being abused.

Ironically the very benefit being sought by "the government" - preventing a stalker from becoming something more.

Trooper York said...

I would like to note that I did not attack the professor and I always talk behind her back.

But that is only because Meade is attached to her front and there is no getting a word in edgewise.

Trooper York said...

I do appolgize for not linking and there will be a lot more lincs in the future.

But sometimes you never know where they might go. Heh.

Lem said...

If it is abuse what we are worried about - Why not make it so that the police needs a warrant first.

Dont have it w/o a warrant.

Jason (the commenter) said...

madawaskan : Here is another thing-could you so easily be swayed from your philosophical beliefs that mean comments on a thread would change how you voted?

Or nice comments?

It's funny you bring this up because there have been times when Palladian has responded in a mean way, but then I responded in a nice way (trying to reason with the person) and later third parties have said they were swayed by my arguments.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The census keeps a lot of information that.. I dont know if "they have a right to".. but they still do.

I have the right to avoid the census takers too or lie to them. It isn't any of the government's business how many people live in my house or if I am married or 'living in sin'.

Yeah yeah. I know the census is supposed to be so that Big Brother can better allocate resources and in reality to gerrymander voting districts to keep themselves in power. I don't care. It is none of their business.

I dont see how a GPS would jeopardize anyones freedom to go anywhere they want.

It doesn't.....not yet anyway. What if the Government decides that it doesn't WANT you to attend a demonstration like the Tea Parties. By having a mandatory GPS on you they can track you down. Take names and notate when you are doing something, going somewhere they don't approve of. How would you like to be put on a black list of sorts because you were at an anti governmental rally?

I have a right to go where I want without being stalked by the government or my ex husband or a curious neighbor. The mere fact of knowing that you are being stalked, observed, followed is likely to inhibit your actions. The right to privacy.

Bob_R said...

Seems to me this is based on Scalia's thermal imaging opinion (which I felt was a good one). If I understand it correctly, Scalia's test of technology was - were you allowed to get the same information in the 19th century, regardless of how you got the information. (I'm a mathematician paraphrasing a decision I've never read, so I'm sure this is missing a few subtleties.)

Technology cut both ways on privacy/anonymity. Cities of a million people make it harder for the police to keep track of you. Cameras and GPS systems make it easier. The police have been allowed to observe us on public streets since the constitution was written - so they are allowed to now with whatever means available. (Per Scalia's decision and the District 4 Court of Appeals.)

So I don't understand why it's not a big deal that they can plant the GPS on the car. Not mentioned in the article, but I would think it be a big deal.

madawaskan said...

Trooper-

Ga! Porch scenes from rabbits are dancing in my view..

Jason-

Well shoot I could be wrong-usually I think people who comment on political blogs are pretty hard core and if they are not by now they should be a little more able to take what they dish out.

ZPS is doing-

crie' innocent....

It's really a particular playing at "victim".

Trooper York said...

Hey if you are going to act so much like the bunnies that they are going to tell you to get a room, well you just have to realize that is going to cause some comments. Just sayn.

madawaskan said...

I keep wanting to link the sound from Young Frankenstein to one of the bunny blogs.....

You know where she belts out-

Sweet mystery of life at last I've found you....

Trooper York said...

Don't start that shit or the professor is going to be pissed that I don't link to her appearances on boringheads.

madawaskan said...

Oh-

Kaus!?

madawaskan said...

I don't think he's found himself yet.

Penny said...

Philosophically is there anyone among the many here who do not value their individual right to privacy? I don't care which side of the aisle you are on, I think were any of us given a private poll, we would ALL tick off, "I value my right to privacy".

I am less moved by the "what if", OMG this is where we are heading comments, because frankly, it always reminds me of those overstated anti-drug ads from the 70's....easy to overlook, easy to make fun of and always easy to dismiss.

Dismissing our freedoms and liberties, one "special" law at a time, is serious business, however, yet our lawmakers think they are working for "us". Wronged people have loud voices via their own attorneys, their sympathetic friends and our lawmakers, and there's the TRUE pity.

Look to yourself first. When a good friend hands you a petition to sign in support of a new traffic light because their kid died at the intersection, say no. When another friend asks you to sign a petition for more autism research because their kid has autism, say no. I could go on and on with examples of how we all get sucked in to "good causes", including protecting friends from being stalked. When you can look a hurting friend in the eye and say "no", then you have the right to tell your local and state lawmakers the same thing. NO MORE LAWS.

LESS is better, and never truer than when we speak of new legislation.

Beth said...

I never supported the warrantless wiretapping program. But don't let that fact stop you from shoveling shit for your Philosopher-King, Lord and Master.You may not have supported it but you voted for the party that put it in works. How's that any different from me not supporting it now, despite voting for Obama? It's not. What's important is that we oppose it - that means, if this ruling is correct on the law, then lawmakers need to hear from their constituents and change the law.

Methadras said...

"Lem said...

..this about is the freedom, if not the total right to go where I wish without being scrutinized or followed regardless of the method of transportation.

I dont see how a GPS would jeopardize anyones freedom to go anywhere they want."

Come on, now you are just wordsmithing at this point. Surely you can see how a GPS would implicitly and essentially violate the privacy of an individual to conduct their movement in secrecy or privacy don't you? A GPS by itself as an instrument to catalogue where you have been or where you are planning on going as administered by a law enforcement agency is clearly a violation of my right to go where I please without scrutiny or government intervention. The two might be mutually exclusive in your eyes but only in the sense that if you bought one for personal/private use as opposed to the government forcing on one you with or without your knowledge.

A government administered GPS device without my knowledge, consent, or the fact that I am a felon, or it's a court order is clearly a way to know where I am and where I am going. It can even be used to infer where I am going. That is wrong. Period. End of story. I clearly disagree with you because you are wrong.

"Our reaction seems more out of a sense of preventing this potential power from some day being abused."

Do you really want to live in a British or KGB style police state? You want to characterize this reaction as something other than what it is?

"Ironically the very benefit being sought by "the government" - preventing a stalker from becoming something more."

As opposed to a stalker being the government itself? Seriously? Your devils advocacy in this case is a little disturbing.

Saul said...

I think the placement of the GPS system would be akin to a trespass. If a police officer can place a gps system on your car, then anyone else can as well without legal consequence. I think the better ruling would be to require an ex parte court order for the placement of the gps system.

Penny said...

OH, this SWORD!

Let me fall on it!

You do all realize there was a day when falling on the sword felt good for both the gentlemen and the ladies?

How quaint.

Cedarford said...

Lem said...
Driving is a privilege not a constitutional right.

Everyone needs a license to drive.

That license imposes on drivers all kinds of limitations hinging upon, of all thing, public safety.

Dust Bunny Queen said... True. The government needs to be assured that I, the driver, know the rules of the road and am competent to be able to handle the vehicle that I plan to drive. They also have the right to make sure that the vehicle that I am driving is safe and conforms to the general standards of that type of vehicle. This is to protect the rest of the public and ensure safety on the highways.

However, they have no right to know exactly where I am driving, when I am driving, how many miles I am driving.

It is none of the government's business.
.


IMO, DBQ has it exactly right, and Lem has ut exactly wrong.

The freedoms of the American people are not limited to what some lawyer dressed in robes decrees he sees in the Constitution - or in the unwritten emenations and penumbras of it.

They go far, far beyond that scrap of paper.

Not untrammeled, mind you, and we should be as beware of someone claiming a new "right" to illegals and refugees to be admitted here, "precious terrorist due process rights", right to free health care paid by others.....as we are of the new Nannys trying to define things Americans had previously done without Gov't interference as new "privileges" granted at the whim of government.

Carbon tax, mandatory Algore bulbs, bans on students bringing peanut-containing food to school....anyone?

Or government wishing to move past some regulation they needed for valid public safety function (drivers and cars safe) to new areas of encroaching regulation. (Cars with carbon use limits, GPS for "mileage-travelled" taxes, etc.)

Bob said...

In New York we got enhanced 911 (read that as GPS in cell phones) mandated due to safety. Several cases where people died from natural or criminal means and who called 911. But back then 911 couldn't track cell phones so operators couldn't dispatch help. In one horrible case a young woman was murdered on the cell call but police couldn't locate body for a couple of days.

Obama's "Smart Grid" plans illustrate this. It will allow for logging of all your energy usage to help reduce energy usage. Eventually, it will be able for government to see your thermostat settings, when you use your washer, how much you run your AC, etc. This instrusion be far more comprehensive than the Bush Wiretapping program ever thought to be. But it will be for a higher purpose and proposed by an "enlightened" President.

Palladian said...

"What's important is that we oppose it - that means, if this ruling is correct on the law, then lawmakers need to hear from their constituents and change the law."

Does that process ever work though? People seem to be content to go along with whatever the State tells them to do, with opposition becoming smaller and smaller every day.

The problem is that the State does not have the right, and never has the right to violate my natural rights, of which I count privacy as one of the most important. I don't care what some law or other that passed without notice or comment says.

But these "laws" will keep being passed and people will keep surrendering more and more of their freedom in exchange for more and more inefficient and unnecessary "protections" and government largess until there's nothing that anyone will be able to do. Of course this process didn't begin under President Obama, and I never suggested that it did. But I believe that he has shown inclination to accelerate the pace of this process.

I may sound hyperbolic at times, but I'm an artist so I'm allowed to be emotional. What's a little hyperbole among friends?

hdhouse said...

Don't they have to somehow attach it to your car? Why couldn't they simply attach it to you then or put it on your driver's license or implant it in your skin....why not..what would be the difference?

hdhouse said...

Palladian said...
"I'm not, nor was I ever, talking about specifics. It's a little rhetorical trick I learned from the President."

Alas. Not very well. Weasels always weasel out don't they Palladian....

PatCA said...

"I could go on and on with examples of how we all get sucked in to "good causes", including protecting friends from being stalked."

That's how it begins, inch by inch, and yes this regime is not the first to exploit our idealism. We must save the auto industry! We must loan money directly to students!

Obama and his party really believe the government should control most of society. And once the government is giving you money, you dance to their tune.

AJ Lynch said...

If it becomes a way of levying addl taxes, the states could simply check your car's mileage once a year. In PA, cars have to be inspected every year and they look at the mileage. Therefore in PA, the state would not need to use a GPS to charge more taxes.

I am looking at new cars and was considering a Pontiac G8 GXP 8 cylinder with manual transmission but someone here said the GM Onstar system keeps track of where you are. So I will most definitely not buy a GM car with Onstar.

AJ Lynch said...

I actually think the GPS mileage tax is another way to re-distribute income.

Today, everyone must pay the gas tax when they buy gas. There are no exceptions to the gas tax.

If they go to a mileage tax, think of all the people who won't pay the tax when they get the bill? While as usual, 90% of Americans will dutifully pay their way!

Joe said...

I don't like this nor the implications. However, I don't see how it's fundamentally different from tailing someone. I just don't see how it's unconstitutional.

That said, I would like to see our various legislatures pass laws requiring a warrant for this type of surveillance.

Methadras said...

Since the GPS/Per-Mile-Tax has come up, it begs the question on whether public transportation will be affected by this. How many can hold up their hands and say yes? Will taxi's be exempt, especially in New York and other large metropolitan areas? The whole thing is a scam and joke and anyone who favors it's institution is embedded in making money from it somehow or is a fascist.

Beth said...

Does that process ever work though? People seem to be content to go along with whatever the State tells them to do, with opposition becoming smaller and smaller every day.Traffic cameras - Sulphur, LA, recently voted to forbid red light cameras. Similar bans are up for votes all around the country.

As for this GPS thing, I don't understand, since my car is considered an extension of my home in terms of me being allowed to carry my gun inside my car legally, why doesn't that same principle apply to cops slapping a tracking device on it with no warrant. It's just my house, on wheels, dammit.

Eli Blake said...

Personally I don't like robotic electronic surveillance, but I doubt if there is much we will be able to do about it.

Heck, in a hundred years they probably won't even have more than a handful of cops anymore, everything will be done by electronic police gadgets of various types.

Can the 'Terminator' be that far behind?

Palladian said...

"Traffic cameras - Sulphur, LA, recently voted to forbid red light cameras. Similar bans are up for votes all around the country."

Good for Sulphur, LA!

Beth said...

We should just moon cameras when we see them. But we'd spend a lot of time with our pants around our ankles. And it would be hard to do at red lights.

hdhouse said...

Beth....feel free to....

Largo said...

Privacy is an issue, but it is not what immediately rankles me. Perhaps the police can soon track all vehicles by satellite imaging. Without denying that it disturbs me, that still does not rankle in the same way.

Anyone can watch me and my car, but whose business is it (police or otherwise) to touch my stuff? Or to freeload on my activities? The extra cost to me in gas by having to transport the damned thing may be de minimus, but that is not the point.

What is the point?

Might it be that, perhaps, it is just an exceedingly rude thing to do?

If I attach a bumper sticker to the bottom of a neighbor's gas tank, to be discovered only when the car is serviced, that is certainly of less consequence than attaching a GPS device. But my neighbor would properly be pissed. It may be so minimal in consequence to be not actionable, and I am not sure I would want it to be. But it is an example of assholery in the first degree.

Notwithstanding a presumption of good intention on the part of the police, for the police to do such a thing is even more sordid. They may have a good reason to attach a GPS to my car. Then let them get a warrant. I would be happy with that. I might be happy for the bar to be set quite low for obtaining such a warrant. Even if pro forma, it reduces the assholery quotient quite a bit.

Pogo said...

More evidence that increasingly we exist at the sufferance of the State. Soon enough, what is not compulsory will be forbidden. And those who complain about these encroachments are called paranoid, or said to have something to hide.

The left howled about Bush listening in on phone calls. Will Madisonians respond to this invasion?

I doubt it.
Who was the city named after?
No one of consequence.