The Obama administration has urged a federal appeals court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects’ vehicles to track their every move.
-
This is already legal in most of the US. If you actually read the article, you'll notice that appeals court has already ruled that it's ILLEGAL in Washington D.C., and the Justice Department is trying to get them to change their mind. That's how the system works. The Justice Department does all it can to prosecute criminals, while the court system makes sure they follow the law. Checks and balances. This is actually a GOOD thing, because if the appeals court shoots them down again (Ruling that it's illegal/inadmissible without a warrant), it might set a precedent that could lead to this becoming illegal in the rest of the country as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Your property rights are violated. Why not just make it mandatory that all cars must be fitted with GPS police tracking? Why not go a step further and make it mandatory that all people must carry GPS ID cards? Do you understand the concept of property rights? Nobody has a right to attach anything to my car without my explicit permission. Also it is not a privilege to use public roads, they belong to the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your property rights are violated.
They are not taking, damaging, entering, using, or otherwise devaluing your property. It's your fucking PRIVACY being invaded you nimrod. We actually discussed this a while back, and disturbing as it is, the folks making the decisions live in nice gated communities with garages, the people they're targeting with this generally park in driveways or on the street. Nice little bit of class warfare(the actual kind, not the OMG taxes kind) really. Technically it's not illegal, as it does not violate existing statutes(except of course the apparent one in DC), unless the right to privacy can be extended to include right not to be tracked.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You worthless backrooms scum need to wake the f*** up and submit to hardcore tyranny. Get down on your knees and beg for the rifle butt instead of the bayonet, and then say thank you very much SIR! after that.
Ooooh yeah baby work it. Come on baby talk dirty to me some more.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
Maybe I should write a book about all the crap that get's posted by him and other people's responses. It would be gold. Since being a complete tool takes such great talent CSS would always be #1. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Constructive dialogue? Checks and balances? My god man! We could get democracy if this carries on! :-D
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Not back here we won't and it would appear to be a great many other places as well. You can't have constructive dialog with someone who calls the president a racist or asks to see his birth certificate. People like CSS don't want checks and balances, they just want it their way. Kinda like Burger King, I know bad joke. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your property rights are violated.
They are not taking, damaging, entering, using, or otherwise devaluing your property. It's your fucking PRIVACY being invaded you nimrod. We actually discussed this a while back, and disturbing as it is, the folks making the decisions live in nice gated communities with garages, the people they're targeting with this generally park in driveways or on the street. Nice little bit of class warfare(the actual kind, not the OMG taxes kind) really. Technically it's not illegal, as it does not violate existing statutes(except of course the apparent one in DC), unless the right to privacy can be extended to include right not to be tracked.
It does violate property rights. Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights. Tracking that person's every move is a violation of privacy. Can't you get it through your head that the government is criminally dangerous? These people are not good people, they are predators.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
It does violate property rights. Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights. Tracking that person's every move is a violation of privacy. Can't you get it through your head that the government is criminally dangerous? These people are not good people, they are predators.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights
This is not a rule to base decisions on. Meter-maids mark your tires with chalk to see if stay past 2 hours in a parking space. They attached chalk to your tire. You can wipe it off if you like, but it is reasonable to allow them to do it. A GPS device is no different.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your property rights are violated.
They are not taking, damaging, entering, using, or otherwise devaluing your property. It's your fucking PRIVACY being invaded you nimrod. We actually discussed this a while back, and disturbing as it is, the folks making the decisions live in nice gated communities with garages, the people they're targeting with this generally park in driveways or on the street. Nice little bit of class warfare(the actual kind, not the OMG taxes kind) really. Technically it's not illegal, as it does not violate existing statutes(except of course the apparent one in DC), unless the right to privacy can be extended to include right not to be tracked.
But you're attaching a thing to my property without my consent, you're using MY property to track me down, so it's a property rights issue. If you want to follow each step I take, well, they will have to find ways where my property is not used, they can put people to follow me, like in the movies, but at the very first moment you use my property against me without a warrant I'll make sure the case is dismissed before you can say Captain Brain Fart.
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Not back here we won't and it would appear to be a great many other places as well. You can't have constructive dialog with someone who calls the president a racist or asks to see his birth certificate. People like CSS don't want checks and balances, they just want it their way. Kinda like Burger King, I know bad joke. ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights
This is not a rule to base decisions on. Meter-maids mark your tires with chalk to see if stay past 2 hours in a parking space. They attached chalk to your tire. You can wipe it off if you like, but it is reasonable to allow them to do it. A GPS device is no different.
puromtec1 wrote:
but it is reasonable to allow them to do it
It is not reasonable to do any such thing, even fliers under the windshield is unwelcome by almost all people. Just because some official does it, that doesn't mean its ok.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Hehe, I was talking about Ian's post above showing things may not be prefect but working.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. It isn't perfect, but it works for the wolves.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
But you're attaching a thing to my property without my consent, you're using MY property to track me down, so it's a property rights issue. If you want to follow each step I take, well, they will have to find ways where my property is not used, they can put people to follow me, like in the movies, but at the very first moment you use my property against me without a warrant I'll make sure the case is dismissed before you can say Captain Brain Fart.
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Gonzoox wrote:
the very first moment you use my property against me without a warrant I'll make sure the case is dismissed before you can say Captain Brain Fart.
As far as I've seen, in the US we have a complete lack of punishment for such things. Unless you can claim a direct loss of some kind due to use/abuse/theft/damage to your property it doesn't get counted. And they aren't using your property, they just put something on it and are using that. Or at least that'd be the first response I could hear coming out of the supporters of this.
-
It does violate property rights. Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights. Tracking that person's every move is a violation of privacy. Can't you get it through your head that the government is criminally dangerous? These people are not good people, they are predators.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It does violate property rights. Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights.
How? Please show me the law/legal precedent which makes this true. As far as I'm aware there aren't any, otherwise this entire thing would be settled already.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Can't you get it through your head that the government is criminally dangerous? These people are not good people, they are predators.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm hardly in favor of this, I'm say we need to make sure it's illegal, and if we wish to defend our rights from further attempts using different techniques to achieve the same effect we should be focusing on the right we can confirm they are violating.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It does violate property rights. Attaching something to someone's property is a violation of property rights.
How? Please show me the law/legal precedent which makes this true. As far as I'm aware there aren't any, otherwise this entire thing would be settled already.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Can't you get it through your head that the government is criminally dangerous? These people are not good people, they are predators.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm hardly in favor of this, I'm say we need to make sure it's illegal, and if we wish to defend our rights from further attempts using different techniques to achieve the same effect we should be focusing on the right we can confirm they are violating.
Distind wrote:
How?
How is it not? What makes you think you have the right to walk up to somebodies car and start messing with it? I swear the liberal's mind is childlike, it is no wonder society is collapsing.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
puromtec1 wrote:
but it is reasonable to allow them to do it
It is not reasonable to do any such thing, even fliers under the windshield is unwelcome by almost all people. Just because some official does it, that doesn't mean its ok.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
even fliers under the windshield
Is a license plate ok? Should people take off their license plate if they want?
Personally I don't think you need a license to operate a motor vehicle. The only thing licensing is good for is revenue collecting. There may be some need for identifying a hit and run suspect or a gas thief, a ID number plate attached to the vehicle can be worked into law the same as having to have turn signals and break lights. The issue is not what the law says about the type of vehicles that are permitted to be driven on public roads, the issue is someone attaching a GPS device to your car without your knowledge (even when it is in your driveway) WITHOUT A WARRANT and having a government thug track your every move.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The case is an important test of privacy rights as GPS devices have become a common tool in crime fighting, and can be affixed to moving vehicles by an officer shooting a dart. Three other circuit courts have already said the authorities do not need a warrant for GPS vehicle tracking.[^] You worthless backrooms scum need to wake the fuck up and submit to hardcore tyranny. Get down on your knees and beg for the rifle butt instead of the bayonet, and then say thank you very much SIR! after that.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Don't worry, they won't need to affix anything to your car - they've already got their spy satellites tracking you.
-
Don't worry, they won't need to affix anything to your car - they've already got their spy satellites tracking you.
-
Don't worry, they won't need to affix anything to your car - they've already got their spy satellites tracking you.
Thats a very drastic way of tracking your pizza delivery!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
Distind wrote:
How?
How is it not? What makes you think you have the right to walk up to somebodies car and start messing with it? I swear the liberal's mind is childlike, it is no wonder society is collapsing.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What makes you think you have the right to walk up to somebodies car and start messing with it? I swear the liberal's mind is childlike, it is no wonder society is collapsing.
It's more a matter of what the law actually states, rather than what you assume it means. There is nothing saying someone cannot touch your car, as it's more or less inevitable that someone will intentionally or otherwise. There's no law against setting something on your car even, as much as it may annoy you. There is also no given law against tracking a transmitter that just so happened to be set on your car. If the law doesn't say they can't do it, quite explicitly, they'll just find another way to do it. They're joyfully exploiting technicalities to violate the privacy of the individual, if you actually have any interest in protecting your privacy rather than your property I'd recommend addressing it as such.
-
Thats a very drastic way of tracking your pizza delivery!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
He wouldn't care if Dominos was tracking him on a delivery... In fact, they should just install a permanent tracker into his personal vehicle (As if he had one), since it's fine if a private company does it. So the government just needs to contract this surveillance to a private company, so CSS's teabagger ideals aren't compromised :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)