Another attack on the fourth amendment

[Tucker Case]

Functionally the same thing.

Except for the fact that if it's inside the car, it physically invades the person's property space. Outside the car, it doesn't. Their property ends at the edge of the vehicle.

This too can be functionally the same thing. It's not like the mic will pick up nothing but noise, electronics can be very sophisticated along with software for noise suppression. Same with a camera. Not all wavelengths of light are blocked by metal or plastic. Inside or outside is functionally the same. You can be recorded. But one is restricted and one isn't? Is there a point then?

Function isn't an issue of importance. The issue here is if the property is being searched, or the public space surrounding the property. If it's in teh public space surroundign the property, it's fine.

And I would have to disagree with what you think is fine. I don't think the government can record my conversations without some proof that I'm doing something wrong or am a threat to someone. Proof such as demonstrated through obtaining a warrant.

The govenrment most definitely can record your conversations. You don't really think they can't do this. What you think is that they shouldn't do this.

 

[Ikari]

Except for the fact that if it's inside the car, it physically invades the person's property space. Outside the car, it doesn't. Their property ends at the edge of the vehicle.

As technology expands and allows for more invasive searches without having to be there; I think that statement will have to be re-evaluated. Technological advancements are going to have to be considered because of perhaps what they will allow one to record and data mine. There is still necessity to restrict the government in what it can and cannot do. If some device were created that let you read someone's mind, is it something that we would allow government to wield without evidence or warrant? I think there is a line at some point where we say enough. This case with GPS is also in that category. I understand that in public you have no expectation to privacy. But I don't think that's enough to say that the government is allowed to do whatever it chooses or use whatever tech is available to conduct surveillance and data mining on you. This issue is only going to be further complicated as technology continues to expand. That's why I think even for cases like this, it's important to set precedent. The government cannot seize whatever tech it wants and use it in any way it wants, particularly when it comes to tracking and surveillance. There are limits to what the government can do. And this warrantless GPS tracking, IMO, definitely falls beyond those limits.

Function isn't an issue of importance. The issue here is if the property is being searched, or the public space surrounding the property. If it's in teh public space surroundign the property, it's fine.

I think function is incredibly important. You put a mic on the outside of the car, but the purpose isn't to record the noise of the road under the car. The purpose is to record the conversations going on inside the car. The point of a lot of these limitations is to prevent the government from doing certain acts. If functionally they are performing that act, then the method by which they do so must be restricted.

The govenrment most definitely can record your conversations. You don't really think they can't do this. What you think is that they shouldn't do this.

OK, my points stand though. This is not proper use of government authority.

 

[political_signs]

wow.... talk about pooping on the little mans intelligence... but still i think this is just kinda retarded unless if they have a plausible reason to think you're a national threat and think you know the system to beat it... then by all means.. continue i got nothing to hide~!!!!!! keep on keeping me safe.

 

[Caine]

Well it depends on the device, right? A ham sandwich is incapable of relaying information, so it can't be a search. But what if you placed a microphone in a car? That now is recording oral communications. What about a video camera? By your argument, all this is fine. Same with a GPS device. It's function is to track spatial coordinates. Just because you place it on something doesn't mean that it can't search something. And what the GPS searches is your location with timestamps. GPS isn't quite the same as a ham sandwich. Ever try to eat a GPS? It tastes bad and is all sharp and pointy.

Ahhh... but while in your car, with your windows rolled up, even since you are in the public.... do you have an expectation of privacy?

I would say you do. You DONT however, have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to where you travel out in town, as everyone can see you.

 

[Caine]

You live in the Chicagoland area too, don't you? If so, I can't say I'm surprised. Government incompetence and corruption runs rampant out here and the police are no exception on both counts. And I'd argue that the boot should be subject to a warrant as well. It's effect is basically the same as a seizure, in that you can no longer use your car.

It IS a seizure.
I don't agree with booting a vehicle in its own parking space. Thats a bunch of BS.
Here we just add the parking fines to the person's vehicle property tax bill.

 

[Caine]

Nope. But if you're the government and you want to use special electronic survalance and tracking devices; you're gonna need a reason to do so. A demonstratable reason. Which is solved by the necessity of a warrant. Technology is always going to change and advance, and not everything is going to be specifically covered in the Constitution. So instead of taking the base as "the government is able to use this", I'd rather the base be "the government is not allowed to use this and must get permission". As we change and grow then, the government is still restricted and we can allow reasonable technology and practices to exist while ensuring that the government is properly constrained.

The government need not know where I am at all times. Sure, when you're outside you have no expectation to privacy, this is true. But that doesn't mean that the sky's the limit. The government is still constrained and must remain so. If the government wants to use electronics to measure and record my position, they need a reason and a warrant to obtain that data mining. That's all there is to it. Where I go is my business, not the governments. And if they want to make it their business, they're going to need valid reason to do so.

And yet all they have to do is follow you around in order to obtain the same data.

 

[Ikari]

Ahhh... but while in your car, with your windows rolled up, even since you are in the public.... do you have an expectation of privacy?

I would say you do. You DONT however, have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to where you travel out in town, as everyone can see you.

And I didn't say people can't look. I'm merely saying that using ones eyeballs and using a series of electronic devices and satelites are two different senarios. I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict government from free usuage of new tech as it pops up in order to preserve some amount of independence from the government. I may not have expectation of complete privacy when I go out; but where I go is none of the government's concern. If I did something so that it becomes their concern they can physically follow me. If they want to do so remotely, then I say get a warrant.

 

[Ikari]

And yet all they have to do is follow you around in order to obtain the same data.

Yup, but they have to follow me. I cannot command one with the use of their own eyes. I can command the government in how it uses technology to track and monitor people.

 

[Caine]

So, what right are you losing then?

 

[Goshin]

The term "police" used to mean "to clean up".


Maybe we should go back to that. They can clean up the bodies after someone ****s with me or my ****. I don't really need them otherwise.


:lamo


I'm just ****ing with ya.... well sorta....

 

[mertex]

Or, you know, they could just wait for you to enter your vehicle and leave your driveway and follow you.
As you have no reasonable expectation to privacy when you are out in public.

Yeah, but if they are able to come to your driveway and stick a GPS on your car, that is invasion of privacy.

They would have a time getting to my car, I live in the country, my house is set deep into my property and we have a 6ft wrought iron fence with a gate!


I don't have anything to hide, I don't commit crimes, but little by little they can erode our freedoms and that is not good!

 

[Ikari]

So, what right are you losing then?

The right to not be arbitrarily followed by the government through passive electronic surveillance methods.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Okay... So the investigators covertly follow you to a public parking lot location, and once you are inside, they install the device on your vehicle at such time...

:roll:

Does it really ****ing matter if they do it in your driveway? Honestly? What are you really bitching about here?

What are you losing by them coming into your driveway?
Would they come into your driveway if they wanted to do a knock and talk to find out if you saw anything in relation to a recent burglary at your neighbors house? DaMn Skippy......

Would your neighbor come into your driveway to knock on your door to deliver you a ****ing welcome to the god damned neighborhood pie? Yep.

So, where is your reasonable expectation of privacy?

The issue is not so much that they tresspassed on private property, the issue is that they did so without a warrant issued by probably cause. That's the small issue.

The big issue is that so many seem to think it's OK.

 

[Caine]

The issue is not so much that they tresspassed on private property, the issue is that they did so without a warrant issued by probably cause. That's the small issue.

The big issue is that so many seem to think it's OK.

So, Police cannot walk through someone's driveway to knock on their door to talk to them without a ****ing warrant? Is that what you are trying to say?

ROFL.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So, Police cannot walk through someone's driveway to knock on their door to talk to them without a ****ing warrant? Is that what you are trying to say?

ROFL.

Nope. That's not it at all. Better go back and review what this thread is really all about.

 

[Caine]

Nope. That's not it at all. Better go back and review what this thread is really all about.

Well, when confronted with the idea that OMG They can't use surveillance on me! With the fact that they can still follow you and you have nothing to argue back with that, folks said: OMFG They are coming onto my property without a warrant! Now you realize they CAN come onto your property without a warrant.... Hmmmm... Now your back to OMFG They can't do surveillance on me!!!!

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well, when confronted with the idea that OMG They can't use surveillance on me! With the fact that they can still follow you and you have nothing to argue back with that, folks said: OMFG They are coming onto my property without a warrant! Now you realize they CAN come onto your property without a warrant.... Hmmmm... Now your back to OMFG They can't do surveillance on me!!!!

No, keep trying. Review what I've already posted about the subject, maybe take another look at the Bill of Rights.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Did anyone read the opinion of the court or was it just the media's summary? The case is USA V. JUAN PINEDA-MORENO, the government did not just randomly pick the defendant out of a crowd and plop a GPS on them and develop a case. No, they developed a case and plopped a GPS on him.

Additionally, there is the case of USA V. LAWRENCE MAYNARD, were the court used a test to determine if continual GPS surveillance was lawful and reasonable. In this case they found constant GPS surveillance to be unreasonable, but you have to read the case to understand why, it is unreasonable for a very specific series of facts.

Yeah legal opinions are sometimes boring… most times boring… ok all of the times boring, but it provides you with facts of the case and not a quick blurb or snippet of a complex issue that is often taken out of context by both sides.

 

[Ikari]

So, Police cannot walk through someone's driveway to knock on their door to talk to them without a ****ing warrant? Is that what you are trying to say?

ROFL.

They're free to walk on my property, just as they are free to get the **** off my property. And they are free to leave my property alone less they have proper warrant; which would include augmenting my property in anyway, particularly if it changes a function of my property in a way undesired by myself.

 

[prrriiide]

Except for the fact that if it's inside the car, it physically invades the person's property space. Outside the car, it doesn't. Their property ends at the edge of the vehicle.

You have case law to back that up?

 

[prrriiide]

This is a very slippery slope, Tucker.

What's to keep the DoT from determining that GPS is a safety feature like and mandating their inclusion on all cars? Don't forget that GPS also tracks velocity. Would you be OK with getting a speeding ticket based on GPS tracking data? Would you be OK with the government tracking your movements based on your cell phone GPS? Did you know that the FBI (among others) can remotely activate your cell phone and use it as a listening device for any location where you are? Would you be OK with them doing that without a warrant? They don't have to touch your phone to do it, so they aren't violating your property rights to do it, are they? Say they listen in on a conversation you have at a McDonald's. Are you OK with that, since it's a public place?

I'll keep my privacy, thank you very much.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Except for the fact that if it's inside the car, it physically invades the person's property space. Outside the car, it doesn't. Their property ends at the edge of the vehicle.

Really? So then adding a spoiler isn't a car modification? :roll:

The govenrment most definitely can record your conversations. You don't really think they can't do this. What you think is that they shouldn't do this.

Without a warrant, no they shouldn't engage in wiretaps.

 

[Caine]

This is a very slippery slope, Tucker.

What's to keep the DoT from determining that GPS is a safety feature like and mandating their inclusion on all cars? Don't forget that GPS also tracks velocity. Would you be OK with getting a speeding ticket based on GPS tracking data? Would you be OK with the government tracking your movements based on your cell phone GPS? Did you know that the FBI (among others) can remotely activate your cell phone and use it as a listening device for any location where you are? Would you be OK with them doing that without a warrant? They don't have to touch your phone to do it, so they aren't violating your property rights to do it, are they? Say they listen in on a conversation you have at a McDonald's. Are you OK with that, since it's a public place?

I'll keep my privacy, thank you very much.

Actually, You are the one who is jumping down a slippery slope.

A phone conversation is a place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy... even if they are in a public place... one cannot hear the other side of the phone in said public place.

 

[Tucker Case]

Really? So then adding a spoiler isn't a car modification? :roll:

Spoilers actually augment the car's function and also become a part of the car (permanent attachment).

Without a warrant, no they shouldn't engage in wiretaps.

Where did I say anything about wiretaps?

 

[Tucker Case]

You have case law to back that up?

Do I really need case law to prove what is undeniably technically true?

Let's just work with an analogy. If I put a piece of paper under someone's car, let's say under their tire, did I "invade" their property? Of course not. If a cop puts a parking ticket under a cars windshiled wiper, are they invading that person's property? Of course not.