Justice Breyer warns of Orwellian government (GPS Tracking Case)

[Don]

From The Hill.

A Supreme Court justice on Tuesday expressed major concerns that the government would engage in round-the-clock surveillance reminiscent of the totalitarian world of the George Orwell novel 1984 if the court ruled in the government's favor.

The court heard oral arguments in the Jones case, in which the outcome will determine whether warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement is an invasion of Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Justice Stephen Breyer questioned what a democratic society would look like if people believed the government was tracking them for days at a time.

"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,” Breyer said. “So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 from their brief."

Of course, this is also a Justice who sided with the majority in Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain taking for commercial purposes) and Kentucky v. King (no warrant or permission required to invade private property if officers suspect evidence may be in the process of being destroyed -- they smelled marijuana from an apartment complex hallway and invaded a private apartment without a warrant) so take his statement with a large grain of salt.

 

[GeorgeK]

Just a logistical question: Why don't the magnets that they use to attach the things interfere with the computer chips?

 

[Michael Wolfe]

From The Hill.

Of course, this is also a Justice who sided with the majority in Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain taking for commercial purposes) and Kentucky v. King (no warrant or permission required to invade private property if officers suspect evidence may be in the process of being destroyed -- they smelled marijuana from an apartment complex hallway and invaded a private apartment without a warrant) so take his statement with a large grain of salt.

Just curious, Don - why would you say Breyer's history means we should take him with a grain of salt? Perhaps his history on civil liberties illustrates the seriousness of the case. Since he's not exactly a figure known to scream out "Police State!" at the drop of a hat.

 

[robeiae]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107836

 

[SPMiller]

Just a logistical question: Why don't the magnets that they use to attach the things interfere with the computer chips?

Because the magnetic field created by the magnet is stationary relative to the conductive materials in the electronics. If it were to move relative to the circuitry, the field would then induce current, which could, as you've realized, be bad.

 

[Vince524]

Because the magnetic field created by the magnet is stationary relative to the conductive materials in the electronics. If it were to move relative to the circuitry, the field would then induce current, which could, as you've realized, be bad.

You lost me at because...

 

[Manuel Royal]

"If you're not committing a crime, you've got nothing to hide." I've heard that a lot. Bullshit. I've got stuff to hide, and a right to hide it, including where I am. I'd allow very few circumstances in which police can search, seize, or surveil without a warrant. I'd like to get rid of all the thousands of governmental security cameras spreading out and multiplying in cities. I'll accept a little more risk.

 

[thothguard51]

Getting a warrant is not that hard...

 

[Zoombie]

"If you're not committing a crime, you've got nothing to hide." I've heard that a lot. Bullshit. I've got stuff to hide, and a right to hide it, including where I am. I'd allow very few circumstances in which police can search, seize, or surveil without a warrant. I'd like to get rid of all the thousands of governmental security cameras spreading out and multiplying in cities. I'll accept a little more risk.

As would I.

 

[Michael Wolfe]

Ditto MR and Zoombie.

 

[SPMiller]

The government has been put in a situation where it must minimize risk at all costs or face criticism from the citizenry. We did this ourselves.

 

[Diana Hignutt]

"If you're not committing a crime, you've got nothing to hide." I've heard that a lot. Bullshit. I've got stuff to hide, and a right to hide it, including where I am. I'd allow very few circumstances in which police can search, seize, or surveil without a warrant. I'd like to get rid of all the thousands of governmental security cameras spreading out and multiplying in cities. I'll accept a little more risk.

This.

ETA: This is the writing on the wall. It's time to leave soon...while we're allowed...

 

[Don]

This.

ETA: This is the writing on the wall. It's time to leave soon...while we're allowed...

I'm not going anywhere. They can come get me if they think they can. The line's been drawn in the sand for some time now.

 

[Diana Hignutt]

I'm not going anywhere. They can come get me if they think they can. The line's been drawn in the sand for some time now.

I've been thinking about farming on a Carribean Island for some time now, but...I couldn't even quit my job that is killing me (in a very literal sense) out of loyalty to my employees and family...I doubt I would either leave either...

(but I wish I wasn't such a sucker for loyalty...it seems to be a poorly valued commody in today's world...aside from brand loyalty, of course...)

but, frankly, if you're smart, and not too loyal...I would leave...but Canada and Europe aren't far behind the US...so think third world...

 

[robeiae]

*checks in at Starbucks with iPhone, hops on unsecured wireless network with laptop*

I don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

[Don]

High court: warrant needed for GPS tracking

The Supreme Court says police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The court ruled in the case of Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.

Sanity prevails?

 

[benbradley]

I just heard this story on the radio and the Supreme Court vote on this was 9 to 0.

 

[shaldna]

I don't like the idea of someone being able to keep tabs on me like that.

However, as a parent I wonder why kids can't have GPS. It would certainly take a lot of worry out of life.

 

[Williebee]

Shaldna, kids can, at least last time I checked, there were a number of phones that will do that.

Course, if you want to implant a chip under the skin... there's probably a research study you can join. *shrug*

 

[Mara]

I just heard this story on the radio and the Supreme Court vote on this was 9 to 0.

Wow. That's a relief.

 

[robjvargas]

The government has been put in a situation where it must minimize risk at all costs or face criticism from the citizenry. We did this ourselves.

QFT.

We've got to stop surrendering our right to be free of government interference in our lives. We all know Ben Franklin's quote about safety vs liberty. We wind up with (and deserve) neither.

 

[robjvargas]

I don't like the idea of someone being able to keep tabs on me like that.

However, as a parent I wonder why kids can't have GPS. It would certainly take a lot of worry out of life.

https://familymap.wireless.att.com/finder-att-family/welcome.htm?

All the major carriers have a similar service.

 

[benbradley]

I don't like the idea of someone being able to keep tabs on me like that.

However, as a parent I wonder why kids can't have GPS. It would certainly take a lot of worry out of life.

If you're a parent or guardian to a minor, I have no doubt you can do that. Minors have fewer rights than adults, and parents have lots of rights over minors. If you've got a GPS monitor hidden in your car and a friend asks to borrow it, you probably don't have to tell them it monitors and records everywhere it's driven and/or sends position and speed to you realtime over the Internet, as you own the car.

A private investigator putting such a monitor on someone else's car might even be legal. This ruling only says it's illegal for governments in the USA do it.

Shaldna, kids can, at least last time I checked, there were a number of phones that will do that.

Course, if you want to implant a chip under the skin... there's probably a research study you can join. *shrug*

That's probably an RFID chip, just a device with a serial number, but you need an RFID reader within a few feet to read it. The minimum size of a GPS receiver and cellphone transmitter is probably an inch square by 1/4 inch thick, larger than peeps might want under their skin.

 

[Don]

Reactions to Jones v. United States: The government fared much better than everyone realizes

Somebody want to read this bit over at ScotusBlog and give us the short course? My brain short-circuited half-way through for some reason.

Here is the upshot. Five Justices join the holding of the “majority” opinion (per Scalia) that by attaching and monitoring a GPS device the police conduct a “search”; four Justices (those in the Alito concurrence) reject that view. Five Justices join or express their agreement with the portion of the “Alito” opinion concluding that the long-term monitoring of a GPS device violates a reasonable expectation of privacy; four Justices (those in the majority, minus Sotomayor) leave that question open.

That alignment of Justices importantly leaves two questions unanswered. First, does the “search” caused by installing a GPS device require a warrant? The answer may be no, given that no member of the Court squarely concludes it does and four members of the Court (those who join the Alito concurrence) do not believe it constitutes a search at all.

Second, assuming no warrant is required for installation, is a warrant required for short-term monitoring of the GPS device? Again, the answer may be no, as the majority conspicuously avoids addressing this issue and four members of the Court (again, those who join the Alito concurrence) squarely say that the answer is “no” (Alito op. at 13). Justice Sotomayor alone says that this scenario “will require particular attention.”

Note that the government has to prevail on both of those later questions. (If a warrant is required to install the device in the first place, then whether it could be monitored for a short time without a warrant is essentially an academic question.) But I think that there is an excellent chance that it will do so.

 

[benbradley]

I was just reading the CNN story, it's worded differently and maybe it will help:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/justice/scotus-gps-tracking/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Washington (CNN) -- Police erred by not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling Monday.

A majority of justices said that secretly placing the device and monitoring the man's movements for several weeks constituted a government "search," and therefore, the man's constitutional rights were violated.

Four other justices also concluded that the search was improper but said it was because the monthlong monitoring violated the suspect's expectation of privacy.
...