FYI SCROTUMS - GPS Tracking = Good for America

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,683
1,600
573
<3
Marklar
₥7,199
Repost for one and most federal investigators already assumed you needed a warrant to do what was covered in the case.

In terms of the case the court really didnt...do much. The decision was unanimous but the opinion was split 3 ways which essentially means there is no binding precedent other than in this specific type of instance you do need a warrant. They can still track your cell phone and shiz.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,683
1,600
573
<3
Marklar
₥7,199
Yes, with gps transmitters, that they put on your car, that they usually get warrants for already.

Didn't really gain anything, didn't lose anything, it's more like staying the course.
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
Marklar
₥43,497
They got a warrant for a different location & time period, but NOT for the locations and time periods the evidence was obtained to put Jones away for life.

Regardless, in this case they called it a "search." This is huge because currently government agencies obtain the same information via your cell phone without any warrant or court order on a significant number of people. It sets up great opportunities for better decisions in future cases to further limit the governments intrusion.

This is short & good.
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-statement-supreme-court-gps-tracking-decision

not so short. . .
http://www.aclu.org/government-cell-phone-and-gps-location-tracking

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/opinion/crump-gps/
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
17,050
498
548
44
Marklar
₥612
So does this set a precedent for Onstar locations when the popo call up GM for info about a car?
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,683
1,600
573
<3
Marklar
₥7,199
Are you retarded? No.
It's only 34 pages, don't be a pussy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

This is a tricky one because most people are reading it as a win for privacy when it's really really not. They used the reasoning that there was a tresspass at common law when affixing the beeper to be the key issue, not that one has an expectation of privacy.

The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12.
(a)The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumeratedin the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 3–4.
 

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
76,209
26,101
1,323
Marklar
₥64,318
Steam
mattressfish
It's only 34 pages, don't be a pussy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

This is a tricky one because most people are reading it as a win for privacy when it's really really not. They used the reasoning that there was a tresspass at common law when affixing the beeper to be the key issue, not that one has an expectation of privacy.

The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12.
(a)The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumeratedin the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 3–4.

Isn't the 4th Amendment where the pseudo Right to Privacy livess?
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,683
1,600
573
<3
Marklar
₥7,199
AMGZ RAGE

The majority opinion said an illegal 'search' occurred when the GPS was placed on the car. Full stop. So you need a warrant to put a GPS device on a car based on the doctrine of trespass. Full stop.

There are eleventy billion ways to get around that. Most obvious being that if you have a gps device already attached they can monitor that.

The opinion YOU WISH was the majority holding was SOTOMAYOR:

I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. [...] I would also consider the appropriateness ofentrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable tomisuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goalto curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent“a too permeating police surveillance,”

But only that one justice delivered that opinion, all the other ones are much narrower readings of the law.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,683
1,600
573
<3
Marklar
₥7,199
Great. Weren't you originally talking about how this isn't a victory for privacy? Seems like limiting a police search is EXACTLY that.
OH
MY
GOD

That is NOT, NEGATIVE, the courts opinion. I said HERRO THIS HERE IS THE MINORITY OPINION, ONLY ONE JUSTICE AGREED WITH THIS. If the WAS the MAJORITY opinion, it would be a win for privacy BUT IT'S NOT.