9th Circuit Appeals Court rules that GPS tracking of vehicles doesn't require a warrant.

[Korietsu]

http://gizmodo.com/5622800/our-worst...just-came-true

It's okay for the government to plant a GPS tracker on the car parked in your driveway, tracking everywhere you go. It doesn't violate your rights, at all—according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Arizona, Oregon and a bunch of the western US, has ruled that the government did nothing wrong when the DEA planted a GPS tracking device on Juan Pineda-Moreno's Jeep, which was parked in his driveway—without a search warrant. The underpinning for the ruling is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your driveway—unless you're loaded and it's kept safe, hidden from the outside world by gates or other security measures—and you have no reasonable expectation not to be tracked by the government.

Your Ever-Bigger Brother
Here are some some other instances of the government putting your privacy in the backseat:
• Oregon's flirting with a mileage tax that would track your car with a special GPS unit
• The same Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says border agents can search your laptop just like any other piece of luggage
• The NSA is looking to store a yottabyte of your personal data
• Police are increasingly treating cameras like they're dangerous weapons?

It's the worst of all possible outcomes, our darkest nightmares about the increasingly mindful technology we put in our pockets come true—that technology being blithely turned against us by our government in a move that only be described as Orwellian, even if that goes the writerly instinct to avoid cliches. Because it's not so much cliche as it is fact. That decision says it's okay for the government to track our movements, everywhere we go, without so much as a scratched slip of paper, eliding all of the protections that are supposedly in place to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

The 'slippery slope' is typically deployed as a trope to argue against men marrying men sliding into a world where dudes do dogs, but if you squint, it's not so hard to see how if it's okay for the government to plant a GPS tracker on your vehicle in the night, without a warrant, it could progress to suddenly being okay to flip the switch on your phone, tracking everywhere it went—after all, if Google can know where you're at, why can't the government?

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that ruled it was okay to search the contents of laptops without even a reasonable suspicion that you're doing something illegal, arguing they're just like any other dumb piece of luggage. Together these two rulings—along with every other boneheaded government utterance about technology, from copyright to broadband regulation—highlight how desperately we need smarter, more considerate laws, rules and regulations when it comes to how the government can use technology for and against the people.

Otherwise we're screwed.

Also, some fox news for the lulz.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...angerous-risk/

With car thieves in the United Kingdom using GPS jammers to aid their getaways, experts say it's only a matter of time until crooks -- and, ominously, terrorists -- in the United States catch on.

But the real threat is the unknown. Criminals could use them to hide their whereabouts from law enforcement -- and some experts fear terrorists could use high-powered jammers to disrupt GPS reception on an airplane or in military operations.

I have to say though, that it is comforting knowing that my car inside my private property doesn't have any expectation of privacy from law enforcement. This is worse than no knock warrants.

[Effluo]

I see the market for GPS jammers growing quickly, then being shut down as a potential security risk even quicker.

[Feedmenow]

If there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, I wonder what you can get away with in someone's driveway.

[Priran]

you have no reasonable expectation not to be tracked by the government.

hahaha what

[archibaldcrane]

Even if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your driveway...that shouldn't apply to everywhere you drive.

If you drive into gated private property, does the GPS magically turn off? No, they're still tracking you in places where you clearly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is absurd.

[Alleya]

Once again you guys fail to realize that terrorists terror 9/11 war on terror post-9/11 world, fear murder terrorist drugs homosexuals.

[Effluo]

Based on a True Story?
http://moviedrinkinggames.files.word...pg?w=300&h=249

Archi, your sig has whole new meaning now ...

[Kuya]

So does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Wonder how long before some court shoots this down.

[Blarg]

Why are they trying to track us? Do they think we are muslims or something

[shepardG]

lol @ muslims

[Cyn]

Once again you guys fail to realize that terrorists terror 9/11 war on terror post-9/11 world, fear murder terrorist drugs homosexuals.

Haha, pretty much.

So does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Wonder how long before some court shoots this down.

Doubtful, and probably not fast enough if at all.

[Korietsu]

Here's a little more.

http://quippd.com/show/3431/The_US_G...ack_Your_Moves

Apparently the dissenting judges agree with the general public consensus that this is a terrible Orwellian ruling. However, more shocking is that the judges feel that the rich are entitled to more privacy than the poor with this judgement.

[archibaldcrane]

Here's a little more.

http://quippd.com/show/3431/The_US_G...ack_Your_Moves

Apparently the dissenting judges agree with the general public consensus that this is a terrible Orwellian ruling. However, more shocking is that the judges feel that the rich are entitled to more privacy than the poor with this judgement.

For each rich dude in a gated community, there's a poor redneck with 40 acres of huntin' land in the middle of Montana.

Not the greatest analogy, but it's just the difference between being "deep" in private property vs. a driveway on a public street.

[Korietsu]

I live about 500 feet back with a fence and gate out in the Texas Hill Country when I'm not in Dallas. We don't often lock our gate even though we live off one of the largest highways in the area, and by no means is it considered a "wealthy" piece of property. Regardless, I feel if you're a property owner the expectation of privacy comes with all parts of the property, just not what's gated.

[*Shinzon*]

To disagree with OP slightly, what exactly do you mean no-knock warrants are bad? How is it bad to provide authorities with the element of surprise to obtain evidence before it's destroyed or protect civilian lives? Thought that was a terrible link to make.

Also the ruling is a joke and probably wont be upheld. It's really confusing when you look at a case like Katz. I just fail to see how they arrived at their ruling.

Edit: Furthermore what doesn't make sense is whether or not reasonable suspicion or even probable cause plays a part in determining the legality of the trackers.

[6souls]

GPS is fail anyways. I can't begin to count the number of times a GPS tracker has put me going through people's houses or large bodies of water.

[Priran]

To disagree with OP slightly, what exactly do you mean no-knock warrants are bad? How is it bad to provide authorities with the element of surprise to obtain evidence before it's destroyed or protect civilian lives?

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4142/larrylaugh.jpg

oh man this thread

[Blubbartron]

GPS is fail anyways. I can't begin to count the number of times a GPS tracker has put me going through people's houses or large bodies of water.

GPS is an encoded system. It is only partially unlocked to the general public. Government agencies have full access to the system and it is accurate to within a meter, give or take. I think public GPS systems are accurate within 10-15 meters.

[Korietsu]

To disagree with OP slightly, what exactly do you mean no-knock warrants are bad? How is it bad to provide authorities with the element of surprise to obtain evidence before it's destroyed or protect civilian lives? Thought that was a terrible link to make.

Also the ruling is a joke and probably wont be upheld. It's really confusing when you look at a case like Katz. I just fail to see how they arrived at their ruling.

Edit: Furthermore what doesn't make sense is whether or not reasonable suspicion or even probable cause plays a part in determining the legality of the trackers.

http://patterico.com/2007/04/26/two-...-manslaughter/
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=103995
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/0...raid-gone-bad/
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=81092

Its pretty obvious. Police will lie, cheat, and steal to get into a home illegally if they think they can get away with it. Many of the warrants are served illegally as well. There even many times police officers violate the 4th amendment on campuses and out on the highways.

Oh, and you're not protecting civvies when you're shooting them. A no knock warrant is the same as a regular warrant, just puts more lives at risk because there are innocent people who will think they're having a home invasion.

[BerenTebogo]

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/0...raid-gone-bad/

Holy crap at this link.