Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#111

Post by electromagnetic »

bartl wrote: post #104
bambax wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment. In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order…

In my own opinion (IANAL), the "tracking is a "search"" view does not imply that there needs to be a physical device. So tracking a vehicle (using technology) in any other way is also a "search".

I'd agree. Tracking through any physical method (IE through an OnStar device or built in cellular with GPS) would have to go through the vehicle manufacturer or service provider, which (if the companies behave how they should) should require a warrant simply to receive the data in the first place.

The greatest concern would be when surveillance satellites could be used to track cars inside a city. Or using CCTV traffic cameras for a live-tracking of tagged license plates. The question is would this tracking actually constitute a search. Because a warrant doesn't have to be issued for an undercover cop to follow a car, only probable cause. So does 'probable cause' extend to digital tracking through a CCTV grid, satellite or combination? That's where it gets creepy to me, because IMO this likely won't constitute a search.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#112

Post by electromagnetic »

unreal37 wrote: post #87
kip_ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as accessing the phone carrier's records on where a cell phone has been via its internal GPS?

The Supreme Court decision actually mentions that the government may "ask" car makers to just give them access to the car's own GPS device. Scary that the Supreme Court even suspects this will happen.

I don't get why the police didn't do this to begin with and then they could have simply blamed the auto manufacturer for not requesting a warrant.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#113

Post by freehunter »

nknight wrote: post #108
freehunter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? One where the majority of people refuse to see politicians as politicians. There is no Democrat vs Republican.

As a non-politician with no connection to politics other than as a voter, I have consistently encountered material differences in my rights and standard of living depending on which party was in power. Your "politicians are all the same" meme might be popular with people who are too lazy to learn about the world, but it rings hollow to anyone not living in willful ignorance.

I'm not saying politicians are all the same. I'm saying politicians are not Democrat or Republican. There is no "democrat", there is no "republican", there is a matrix of beliefs combined with a scale of how deeply held those beliefs are. You cannot say "life is better when a Democrat is in charge" because there is no definition of a Democrat. They run the spectrum, like all other politicians.

This is like saying you prefer presidents with brown hair. There are good people with brown hair, and there are bad people with brown hair.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#114

Post by freehunter »

bestes wrote: post #80
freehunter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? One where the majority of people refuse to see politicians as politicians. There is no Democrat vs Republican.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly; could you please expand a bit?

Democrat and Republican are labels given without definition. You can call yourself a Republican but be pro-choice, anti-gun, and tax-and-spend. Political parties are fluid based on which politician participates at any given moment. Actual beliefs are too nuanced to be boiled down to "liberal/conservative" or "democrat/republican". Even trying to do so is making a mockery of democracy, to paraphrase George Washington. A big issue with politics is people pay more attention to the definition-less label and less attention to what the politician actually stands for (if anything).

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#115

Post by ajkessler »

IgorPartola wrote: post #107
cwp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting a precedent is, in fact, the creation of new law. This is the basis of the Common Law system that the United States and other former English colonies use. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

:). Thanks for the link, it was very educational. However, it actually doesn't seem to apply in this case: "United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law (connotation 1(a) above)." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common…

In theory, you're right: courts don't make laws. In practice, courts make law every day. This is intuitively obvious (e.g. If law says you can't do A or C but says nothing about B, and the court says "B is really just like A and C, so B is also prohibited under the law", the court has just made law)[edit: perhaps not so obvious if you don't practice law, but courts do this every day], but also goes deeper: The very idea of judicial review itself was invented by the courts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison).

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#116

Post by dbarlett »

iandanforth wrote: post #23
ajkessler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of our most important caselaw is contained in footnotes.

If you could supply a few examples I would love to learn!

The actual holding in Taylor v. Taintor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor) is not nearly as famous as the paragraph in the majority opinion that gives legal standing to bounty hunters: "Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose"

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#117

Post by nknight »

freehunter wrote: post #113
nknight wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-politician with no connection to politics other than as a voter, I have consistently encountered material differences in my rights and standard of living depending on which party was in power. Your "politicians are all the same" meme might be popular with people who are too lazy to learn about the world, but it rings hollow to anyone not living in willful ignorance.

I'm not saying politicians are all the same. I'm saying politicians are not Democrat or Republican. There is no "democrat", there is no "republican", there is a matrix of beliefs combined with a scale of how deeply held those beliefs are. You cannot say "life is better when a Democrat is in charge" because there is no definition of a Democrat. They run the spectrum, like all other politicians. This is like saying you…

I have Asperger's Syndrome. This rests on something hazily known as the autism spectrum. It sits alongside other disorders such as Autism and Rett syndrome. There are millions of people with such disorders. Although we all have what you might describe as "autistic characteristics", our actual problems are different, and fall into various categories that have been established to aid understanding, coping, and treatment.

Your argument that there are no Democrats or Republicans amounts to an argument that there is no Asperger's syndrome, or Rett syndrome, it's all just Autism. Anyone actually on this spectrum, or that spends even the slightest bit of time studying it, would tell you you're either ignorant or insane.

Electromagnetic energy is also on a spectrum. In some places we call it "visible light". In some places it's infrared, ultraviolet, radio, or microwave. Are they all energy? Yes, but that's irrelevant.

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, they are all a grouping of policies and beliefs that are assigned labels. There is no more "no democrat" or "no republican" than there is "no visible light".

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#118

Post by nknight »

digikata wrote: post #106
burgerbrain wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand Paul has on numerous occasions spoken out against the TSA's use of pat downs...

I see no difference in principle between a search using someone's hands and search using X-rays. If one objects to rights violation during a pat-down, why doesn't the same objection apply to backscatter? A backscatter machine in some ways is even more intrusive than a pat down as it can generate higher resolution images, which can be saved. Furthermore, there is a small, but non-zero risk of bodily harm from the scan…

If I have a nude photograph of someone, does that mean I've already raped them?

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#119

Post by IgorPartola »

ajkessler wrote: post #115
IgorPartola wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:). Thanks for the link, it was very educational. However, it actually doesn't seem to apply in this case: "United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law (connotation 1(a) above)." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common…

In theory, you're right: courts don't make laws. In practice, courts make law every day. This is intuitively obvious (e.g. If law says you can't do A or C but says nothing about B, and the court says "B is really just like A and C, so B is also prohibited under the law", the court has just made law)[edit: perhaps not so obvious if you don't practice law, but courts do this every day], but also goes deeper: The very i…

Neat. I wonder what our society would have looked like today if Marshall lost that one (had a bad day, spilled his coffee).

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#120

Post by freehunter »

nknight wrote: post #117
freehunter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying politicians are all the same. I'm saying politicians are not Democrat or Republican. There is no "democrat", there is no "republican", there is a matrix of beliefs combined with a scale of how deeply held those beliefs are. You cannot say "life is better when a Democrat is in charge" because there is no definition of a Democrat. They run the spectrum, like all other politicians. This is like saying you…

I have Asperger's Syndrome. This rests on something hazily known as the autism spectrum. It sits alongside other disorders such as Autism and Rett syndrome. There are millions of people with such disorders. Although we all have what you might describe as "autistic characteristics", our actual problems are different, and fall into various categories that have been established to aid understanding, coping, and treatmen…

Yet you still get "democrats" who lower taxes, start wars, and restrict liberty. Yet you still get "republicans" who raise taxes, increase the size of government, and create social programs. If you have blue visible light and mix it with red visible light, is it still called "red" or "blue"? Or is there a different name for it? Because it sure as hell isn't still blue.
Post reply on HN