GPS Tracking - A Violation of Privacy?

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/18/gps.tracking/index.html

So a police officer attaches a GPS receiver to your car and then monitors your position from their desk. Perhaps you've done nothing wrong, and yet you're being tracked. Is this a violation of your rights?

Those of you who know me well would probably say "Danoff thinks this is a violation of rights". But in this case I don't think so. It's close. Obviously putting a video camera in your house without a warrant counts as an illegal search. But what about videotaping your house from across the street? The look of your house and yard is open to the public. I don't see anything wrong.

Similarly, the whereabouts of your car are open to the public. They could keep taking satellite images of your city looking for your car, or they could put a police tail on you and follow you around - all legally. I don't see why they can't put a GPS unit on your car to track you.

Of course once they do that, the GPS unit belongs to you and you could smash it or put it on someone else's car if you wanted to. But the physical act of putting something on your car isn't illegal (as long as no damage is done), and the act of tracking your whereabouts isn't illegal, so I don't see why this should be an issue.

Any thoughts?

 

[Tornado]

I'd say the same thing. This is very similar to a unmarked patrol car tailing you, so I see little difference in how the law should be applied.

 

[Joey D]

As long as it stays on the vehicles of suspects I have no issue with it, but when they start putting it on the normal persons car I'll have an issue. Also I can see this system being abused by some wack jobs to stalk people, I mean if the police can track your car a computer geek stalker can too.

 

[Danoff]

As long as it stays on the vehicles of suspects I have no issue with it, but when they start putting it on the normal persons car I'll have an issue. Also I can see this system being abused by some wack jobs to stalk people, I mean if the police can track your car a computer geek stalker can too.

Paparazzi?

 

[Sage]

But the physical act of putting something on your car isn't illegal (as long as no damage is done) [...]

That would be my only sticking point. Can't you deny consent for others to touch your property? Someone can't just drop trash onto my lawn, even though that doesn't physically damage anything (especially since I don't have a lawn! ) - how is strapping a GPS device any different from someone dropping trash into your car?

 

[Joey D]

Paparazzi?

I was thinking more along the lines of perverts looking to get their jollies by tracking some girl/guy they are obsessed with. But that works too.

 

[Tornado]

how is strapping a GPS device any different from someone dropping trash into your car?

Probable cause?

 

[Danoff]

That would be my only sticking point. Can't you deny consent for others to touch your property? Someone can't just drop trash onto my lawn, even though that doesn't physically damage anything (especially since I don't have a lawn! ) - how is strapping a GPS device any different from someone dropping trash into your car?

But I think you could spray someone's car with water, or mud even, and be safe from a legal point of view. The litter argument is an interesting one. It seems as though we have different laws for something of value vs. something that does not have value.

For example, if you threw an iphone on someone's lawn, I think almost no police officer on the planet would prosecute you for litter. Even if you did it intentionally.

I suppose I would say that if it's illegal for an individual to do this (put a GPS tracker on someone's car and track them) then it should also be against the rules for the cops unless there's some sort of check in place (like a warrant).

 

[Kylehnat]

I don't believe the government should have the right to touch your stuff unless they have a warrant or probable cause. Tracking random people is a violation of privacy. If it isn't, then what the heck is?

 

[Danoff]

I don't believe the government should have the right to touch your stuff unless they have a warrant or probable cause. Tracking random people is a violation of privacy. If it isn't, then what the heck is?

Searching your house... for example.

 

[Omnis]

As long as it stays on the vehicles of suspects I have no issue with it, but when they start putting it on the normal persons car I'll have an issue.

Long as it's terrorists being sent to those secret prisons...


Of course, I don't have a problem with this GPS tracking if the police have a proper warrant to track you. I'm a little iffy about the surreptitious use though. The conventional methods of tracking are not really tracking, but locating. It's not permanent. The use of sophisticated tracking devices could mean the permanent tracing of an individual unaware of the undetectable bugs. We're supposed to be secure in our effects against things like this which I consider to be the equivalent of an unreasonable search.

 

[YSSMAN]

The issuing of a warrant is the key to this issue. If the police have probable cause (or whatever) to follow you and it is backed up by the courts, by all means, place the tracker on someone. The problem is, if they're doing it without the court's acknowledgment, it really gets tricky in my book. If it happened to me, I'd be royally pissed... But considering that I've got GPS in my phone, which they can track, and we've got OnStar in our truck which they can track... Meh.

I think its the same worry with the warrant less wire taps, it can easily be mis-used against otherwise innocent people. To answer the question at the end of the article:

"The question always comes down to how much are we willing to give up in freedom and privacy for how much marginal increase in our security."

These days, I'd rather have the privacy than the security. But, that's just me.

 

[Omnis]

All I know is Ben Franklin must be absolutely spinning.

 

[Sage]

But I think you could spray someone's car with water, or mud even, and be safe from a legal point of view. The litter argument is an interesting one. It seems as though we have different laws for something of value vs. something that does not have value.

For example, if you threw an iphone on someone's lawn, I think almost no police officer on the planet would prosecute you for litter. Even if you did it intentionally.

See, that bothers me, because I don’t think the state should be making a value judgement to decide whether something constitutes litter (anything theoretically has value). And even if I were okay with them deciding on an arbitrary value, it still doesn’t work – if dumping a $200 iPhone on someone’s lawn is fine, then dumping $200 in packaging foam has to also be okay.

BTW, I should clarify that I’m fine with this being done on a warrant (no different than entering a house), and actually I’m not decided on whether or not it’s okay without a warrant. I’m just making the arguments to see where they go.

 

[niky]

I think the only issue here is the warrant, or lack, thereof... but do you need a warrant to do police surveillance? I think the same type of thing should apply here.

But no way can they throw that guy's case out on such a flimsy excuse...

 

[Omnis]

I think the only issue here is the warrant, or lack, thereof... but do you need a warrant to do police surveillance? I think the same type of thing should apply here.

But no way can they throw that guy's case out on such a flimsy excuse...

They usually don't just throw cases away, anyway. The gathered evidence is just discarded.

 

[Joey D]

Long as it's terrorists being sent to those secret prisons...


Of course, I don't have a problem with this GPS tracking if the police have a proper warrant to track you. I'm a little iffy about the surreptitious use though. The conventional methods of tracking are not really tracking, but locating. It's not permanent. The use of sophisticated tracking devices could mean the permanent tracing of an individual unaware of the undetectable bugs. We're supposed to be secure in our effects against things like this which I consider to be the equivalent of an unreasonable search.

Well with suspects you still need a warrant which is what I meant.

 

[Danoff]

I think its the same worry with the warrant less wire taps, it can easily be mis-used against otherwise innocent people.

I don't see how this is the same as warrantless wire taps. The information gathered by the GPS device is information that could be gathered using methods we'd all agree are legal. It's just a matter of the number of cops employed by the state as to whether or not it's feasible to gather such information.

The wire taps are the equivalent of placing bugs in your home. It's not information available to you without actually invading someone's property. I see a big difference between recording what you knowingly present to the public and what you intentionally keep private on your own property.

See, that bothers me, because I don’t think the state should be making a value judgement to decide whether something constitutes litter (anything theoretically has value). And even if I were okay with them deciding on an arbitrary value, it still doesn’t work – if dumping a $200 iPhone on someone’s lawn is fine, then dumping $200 in packaging foam has to also be okay.

I'm not so sure either. But, if we start from the water example - surely you can't sue your neighbor for having an errant sprinkler spray water on your car right? Or for their tree droping a leaf on your lawn. Now what about those guys in parking lots who put flyers on your car? I don't see those guys being put in jail. I get all kinds of mail (some of it hand-delivered to my doorstep) that I don't want. Can I prosecute for litter?

If someone touches your car (no damage), what crime would you prosecute them for? I don't know Sage. I'm not sure it's illegal to leave a GPS device on your car. But if it's illegal for individuals, I think it should be illegal for cops too.

That being said, it would be interesting to see an individual turn this around on the cops and place a GPS device on the cop car bumper to keep track of them.

 

[Touring Mars]

I see a big difference between recording what you knowingly present to the public and what you intentionally keep private on your own property.

The problem with that is that there are aspects of your life that you cannot help but to 'knowingly present' to the public - surely you have a right to move around without harassment or your every move being the subject of public (or police) record? So if the police are allowed to track someone's movements at will, it's legal... but if I do it to Kylie Minogue, suddenly I've "gone too far"... no fair

 

[Omnis]

The problem with that is that there are aspects of your life that you cannot help but to 'knowingly present' to the public - surely you have a right to move around without harassment or your every move being the subject of public (or police) record? So if the police are allowed to track someone's movements at will, it's legal... but if I do it to Kylie Minogue, suddenly I've "gone too far"... no fair

Haha! Good point.

 

[YSSMAN]

The wire taps are the equivalent of placing bugs in your home. It's not information available to you without actually invading someone's property. I see a big difference between recording what you knowingly present to the public and what you intentionally keep private on your own property.

True, I would suppose it would depend on how or what kind of bug the police (or whoever) would be using on you.

A question that recently arose in my mind is who exactly the police would be following, and generally, how that would help them much at all when it comes to being able to pin someone down on a crime. If anything, there would have to be come level of circumstantial evidence that would otherwise be "nothing" in the grand scheme of things, or maybe just taken completely out of context... I don't know.

I mean, if they're following a "terrorist" who is going to school to pick up his kids, several hardware stores to pick up supplies for his bathroom re-model, the local Mosque for daily prayer(s), and maybe the airport to pick up his uncle... Couldn't normal things be tied together too easily as something negative?

 

[FoolKiller]

So, I am late to the party.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/18/gps.tracking/index.html

So a police officer attaches a GPS receiver to your car and then monitors your position from their desk. Perhaps you've done nothing wrong, and yet you're being tracked. Is this a violation of your rights?

He had better have a dang good suspicion that I did something wrong.

Similarly, the whereabouts of your car are open to the public. They could keep taking satellite images of your city looking for your car, or they could put a police tail on you and follow you around - all legally. I don't see why they can't put a GPS unit on your car to track you.

Again, all these things require some very good suspicion first.

Of course once they do that, the GPS unit belongs to you and you could smash it or put it on someone else's car if you wanted to. But the physical act of putting something on your car isn't illegal (as long as no damage is done), and the act of tracking your whereabouts isn't illegal, so I don't see why this should be an issue.

Wait, how is it attached? Magnetically? Sticky stuff (can do damage). Bolt? I am guessing that it was placed inside the guy's bumper it isn't magnetic. That doesn't work often these days. I really challenge them to find a spot on my VW that is hidden and reacts to magnets.

Better yet, if they realize I am innocent do they ever remove it? Or can they continue tracking me? There are too many questions that the article does not answer.

And if there is a crime spree with no subject(s) what prevents them from putting something on every car in the area? Then they just see which cars happened to be in the vicinity of the next crime.

We also have the same issue as many traffic cameras: Yep, you caught my car in a certain area at a certain time. Now, prove I was in it. If I am being tailed they know I am in the car, I went into the building/area, and I am involved. A guy sitting at his desk, sipping coffee, eating doughnuts, and watching a red dot on a map on his computer does not know that I am there.



Then it also creates another issue, crime prevention and officers as eyewitnesses. In the case reported they knew the guy did it because his locater pointed him at the crime scene at the time of the crime. I bet the victim feels much better knowing that the police just waited for her to be attacked so they could track the guy on a computer, when an officer tailing the man might have been able to stop the crime and act as an eyewitness to the man's action. Now, she is a victim and also gets to know that if this does get turned over on Constitutional grounds that he will likely walk free.

Here is a good rule for cops: If it is new and untested don't use it until it holds up to Constitutional scrutiny in a court.