PDA

View Full Version : Are the troothspeaking lawyers pulling a fast one?


David42
07-23-2011, 12:40 PM
I made the following post in another thread. Seems like it may be a good question for separate treatment on a question of the logic of it alone.

Here we do not ask for court opinions, but analyze the proposition by reasoning alone.


As a matter of pure logic alone, and not trying to suggest the state of the law, I have been meaning to point this out:

If we believe arguendo that the "exterior" of a car, including the undercarriage of a car, is exposed to the public by the owner, who therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy in it, we have a problem when faced with the question: Since the beeper is also exposed to the public, it must be exposed to the owner, and therefore it makes sense that the owner will question its presence, and remove it and call the police or see a lawyer or change their activities, so why didn't he?

The only answer is that it is hidden, the owner does not see it and does not know about what is hidden in his undercarriage. How can something hidden be exposed to the public? Have we gotten to the point where police hiding things so that they escape notice is excused by the fact that the owner "exposed" the hiding place?

What is this, "exposed" for the purposes of defendants, but "hidden" for purposes of police? Seems cheesy to me, quite the double standard. The thing is either where the public can readily see it or it isn't, WTF is all this quibbling?

What happens when the police attempt to install their GPS and they find that the defendant's (ahem...HIDDEN) keyholder is in the place they planned to put it, a place they are allowed to put it because it is "exposed to the public?" He, he, what happens if the second place the police try to put their GPS is where a previous owner put his keyholder?

Of course being in this position is brought to us by the fine folks whose priorities don't seem in the interest of doing justice from time to time...

"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right."
—Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932)[2] (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

(Ok that's not quite fair, its more recent courts that have put us in the illogical position we are in.)

For those who believe that saying something is more important than saying something correct, I suppose this makes sense. It doesn't to me. I usually find it VERY HARD to argue with Justice Brandeis' reasoning--no wonder he is so admired. If you're interested in the state of the law, by all means quote the majority. Often, for good reasoning though, you wanna look at the dissents.

I reiterate I am asking out of logic, and not as a matter of law.

Folks, I should tell you, a fast one is being pulled here on We the People. 1984 is here, at least in the minds of those supporting warrantless GPS and other sorts of mass surveillance technology.

Sounds like some kind of truthspeak slogan to me: Hidden is Exposed, sounds like it would have fit in right dandy with the other slogans in 1984.

Well, Dopers, does it make any sense?

Jimmy Chitwood
07-23-2011, 04:47 PM
I'm not sure your thread title qualifies for that "reasoning alone" treatment, but here goes:

Do you have any reasonable expectation of privacy in, say, a train station lobby, or is that "exposed" to the public? And if you taped an envelope to the underside of a bench in a train station, would that envelope be "hidden"?

In other words, can't something be "hidden" in a place that is nevertheless not private by virtue of affording any reasonable expectation of privacy, because it's in a place people usually won't look, even though they're entitled to?

Freudian Slit
07-23-2011, 04:53 PM
Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can't make any sense of this OP.

David42
07-23-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm not sure your thread title qualifies for that "reasoning alone" treatment, but here goes:

Do you have any reasonable expectation of privacy in, say, a train station lobby, or is that "exposed" to the public? And if you taped an envelope to the underside of a bench in a train station, would that envelope be "hidden"?

In other words, can't something be "hidden" in a place that is nevertheless not private by virtue of affording any reasonable expectation of privacy, because it's in a place people usually won't look, even though they're entitled to?

If whoever placed the envelope told me he was careful and no-one saw him stick the envelope under the bench, assuming I wanted what was in the envelope, I would have a high enough degree of confidence that it would be that I'd go look, especially if it were only a few minutes.

A bit different set of facts though...in the end, I'd reasonably say anything left in public unattended is fair game to go to a lost and found department...

and of course the envelope has to be in public view before the guy sticks it under the bench, so it has been exposed.

David42
07-23-2011, 07:18 PM
Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can't make any sense of this OP.

Any lawyers devising such arguments, be they judges or not.

The car owner could be anybody.

The quote is from the Supreme Court of the U.S., the case is cited.

It's about the reasoning behind fourth amendment analysis.

Implicit
07-23-2011, 09:02 PM
Folks, I should tell you, a fast one is being pulled here on We the People. 1984 is here, at least in the minds of those supporting warrantless GPS and other sorts of mass surveillance technology.

Sounds like some kind of truthspeak slogan to me: Hidden is Exposed, sounds like it would have fit in right dandy with the other slogans in 1984.
Privacy is an illusion. Look at the "anonymity" of the internet; it's no longer the wild west, Google has your number. Whatever expectation of privacy you are espousing has already been sacrificed for convenience. Welcome to the 21st century.

Lakai
07-23-2011, 09:13 PM
The quote is from the Supreme Court of the U.S., the case is cited.

It's about the reasoning behind fourth amendment analysis.

The quote about stare decisis is cited, but what about everything else that's in the quote box?

Boyo Jim
07-23-2011, 09:26 PM
"Exposed to the public" does not mean "obviously visible". IMO it means that an item can be seen if a member of the public happens to be in the right place to see it, and that they have a legal right to be in such a place. A member of the public has the legal right to crawl under a car in the street, and the tracking device becomes visible at that time, but in a narrow sense it has always been "exposed".

It's the difference between "impossible" and "highly unlikely" to be seen.

Bryan Ekers
07-23-2011, 09:47 PM
Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can't make any sense of this OP.

I believe the OP is referring to a case where police attached a GPS tracker to a suspect's car and tracked his movements for a month, using it to gather evidence of wrongdoing. Legalistic arguments followed about whether attaching such a device to someone's car constitutes unreasonable seizure of (or interference with use of) assets, as well as the privacy invasion of letting an electronic device do what otherwise would require teams of officers surreptitiously tracking the suspect's car's movements though public streets, etc.


The lawyers on both side, natch, are pulling out all the various and numerous hair-splitting stops.

David42
07-23-2011, 11:40 PM
The quote about stare decisis is cited, but what about everything else that's in the quote box?

Another post I made.

David42
07-23-2011, 11:41 PM
Privacy is an illusion. Look at the "anonymity" of the internet; it's no longer the wild west, Google has your number. Whatever expectation of privacy you are espousing has already been sacrificed for convenience. Welcome to the 21st century.

Not all are internet users. Is their privacy an illusion?

David42
07-23-2011, 11:42 PM
I believe the OP is referring to a case where police attached a GPS tracker to a suspect's car and tracked his movements for a month, using it to gather evidence of wrongdoing. Legalistic arguments followed about whether attaching such a device to someone's car constitutes unreasonable seizure of (or interference with use of) assets, as well as the privacy invasion of letting an electronic device do what otherwise would require teams of officers surreptitiously tracking the suspect's car's movements though public streets, etc.


The lawyers on both side, natch, are pulling out all the various and numerous hair-splitting stops.

It involves more than one case, but yes, that is essentially correct.

David42
07-23-2011, 11:57 PM
Two lovers cannot meet often and exchange notes in a hole in a wall which is not readily seen. One day another man realizes what they are doing after seeing them each a few times.

He is a reasonable man. Does he go read their notes, or not?

David42
07-24-2011, 12:03 AM
A stranger has crawled under your car looking for a hide-a-key. You spot him and think:

A) 'Ah, that's just as things ought to be, I exposed the undercarriage of my car to the public, he can look all he likes.'

B) 'WTF is that guy doing under my car? he surely can't have any business under there. Damn, he's running his hands behind the bumpers, is he f'n TRYIN' TO STEAL MY CAR?'

What is the response of the reasonable person?

Implicit
07-24-2011, 12:03 AM
Not all are internet users. Is their privacy an illusion?
It was one example. We, as a society, have embraced technology. You can demand that laws be written or interpreted to deal with technology, but ultimately that's a losing battle. The next generation isn't fighting for their privacy or they wouldn't be posting their whole lives on facebook, they are willing to trade privacy for the conveniences supplied by technology.

David42
07-24-2011, 12:19 AM
It was one example. We, as a society, have embraced technology. You can demand that laws be written or interpreted to deal with technology, but ultimately that's a losing battle. The next generation isn't fighting for their privacy or they wouldn't be posting their whole lives on facebook, they are willing to trade privacy for the conveniences supplied by technology.

Some people voluntarily exposing private information to the public doesn't make sense as a reason to take privacy from someone who hasn't shared his private things with the public.

From your perspective as a person who has embraced technology, society appears to have embraced it. Is that the same perspective as a poor person who cannot afford it, or a simple person who doesn't want to use it, or a dumb person who can't use it?

Just how many are online? "Embraced" probably calls for a supermajority. Are there that many?

Implicit
07-24-2011, 12:47 AM
Two lovers cannot meet often and exchange notes in a hole in a wall which is not readily seen. One day another man realizes what they are doing after seeing them each a few times.

He is a reasonable man. Does he go read their notes, or not?
You want a law against reading a piece of paper someone finds in a hole?


A stranger has crawled under your car looking for a hide-a-key. You spot him and think:

A) 'Ah, that's just as things ought to be, I exposed the undercarriage of my car to the public, he can look all he likes.'

B) 'WTF is that guy doing under my car? he surely can't have any business under there. Damn, he's running his hands behind the bumpers, is he f'n TRYIN' TO STEAL MY CAR?'

What is the response of the reasonable person?
C) He's retrieving a ball or his cat.

A reasonable person doesn't hide a key on their car since both the police and insurance companies advise against that.

If this topic came from a specific case, then why are you making up ridiculous scenarios instead of presenting the details of that case?



From your perspective as a person who has embraced technology, society appears to have embraced it. Is that the same perspective as a poor person who cannot afford it, or a simple person who doesn't want to use it, or a dumb person who can't use it?

Are you suggesting that the police should be restricted to using early 20th century techniques for surveillance forevermore because not every person has access to technology?

David42
07-24-2011, 09:50 AM
You want a law against reading a piece of paper someone finds in a hole?

I didn't say that. I asked whether a reasonable person would respect something obviously private even though, since it's in public, he could pry.



C) He's retrieving a ball or his cat.

A reasonable person doesn't hide a key on their car since both the police and insurance companies advise against that.

If this topic came from a specific case, then why are you making up ridiculous scenarios instead of presenting the details of that case?

He's not retrieving a ball or cat, he's running his hands behind the bumper looking for a hide-a-key. He;s also not a neighborhood resident, but a stranger.

The example did not involve a person who uses a hide a key, it involves someone looking for one. It doesn't have to be there. Although, these days, I'd be more likely to say, "WTF, is this guy planting a GPS?

If police and insurance companies advise against it, it must be because of people who will look for it in order to drive your car. If they think its reasonable for this to happen, why is it a ridiculous scenario? This topic comes from many cases, and is not specifically about any of them. There is nothing wrong with thought experiments in figuring things out.


Are you suggesting that the police should be restricted to using early 20th century techniques for surveillance forevermore because not every person has access to technology?

No, when did I say that? We are just looking at the logic of the idea that something the police purposely hide so it won't be seen is considered "exposed to the public."

I'm for the police getting warrants to do this stuff, though it's outside the O.P. to discuss it.

I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology. I asked for some proof that society has embraced technology, as in numbers.

UltraVires
07-24-2011, 10:10 AM
Sure a stranger may have the right to crawl under your car (for whatever strange reason), but does he have the right to attach something to it?

I would say that it is a fifth amendment "taking" as well because the value of a car that is untracked by the police is greater than one that is tracked. By attaching the GPS, they have devalued your car. It is a trespass to a chattel, is it not?

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 10:30 AM
I didn't say that. I asked whether a reasonable person would respect something obviously private even though, since it's in public, he could pry.





He's not retrieving a ball or cat, he's running his hands behind the bumper looking for a hide-a-key. He;s also not a neighborhood resident, but a stranger.

The example did not involve a person who uses a hide a key, it involves someone looking for one. It doesn't have to be there. Although, these days, I'd be more likely to say, "WTF, is this guy planting a GPS?

If police and insurance companies advise against it, it must be because of people who will look for it in order to drive your car. If they think its reasonable for this to happen, why is it a ridiculous scenario? This topic comes from many cases, and is not specifically about any of them. There is nothing wrong with thought experiments in figuring things out.




No, when did I say that? We are just looking at the logic of the idea that something the police purposely hide so it won't be seen is considered "exposed to the public."

I'm for the police getting warrants to do this stuff, though it's outside the O.P. to discuss it.

I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology. I asked for some proof that society has embraced technology, as in numbers.


If someone's under your car, you can't see where there hands are, nor can you tell if it's someone from the neighborhood or a stranger, unless you are under there with them.

I don't the the "hiding" part is an issue at all. Do you object if police put a hidden surveillance camera in a park at a place where there've been a lot of muggings? Do you object to the FBI setting up hidden cameras across the street from foreign embassies?

The REAL question, IMO, is where does your property end and and "public space" begins. Presumably this GPS unit was attached to the car with a magnet, or perhaps strapped on to a strut or something under the car. At a wild guess, I would imagine the courts might rule differently if the cops drill a hole in something and bolt the tracker in place. But would a court find differently if cops managed to attach a hidden camera to a fence which ran along the property line of your home? And whether attaching a camera or a listening device in a barely public space would be different from a GPS tracker?

As to your last point -- are you joking? You want evidence that society has embraced technology? Look around. There is a consumer indistry now for surveillance equipment -- nanny cams, Lowjack devices for kids, etc. People LOVE spying on other people. They're just not so happy about when they're spied upon.

UltraVires
07-24-2011, 10:35 AM
The REAL question, IMO, is where does your property end and and "public space" begins. Presumably this GPS unit was attached to the car with a magnet, or perhaps strapped on to a strut or something under the car. At a wild guess, I would imagine the courts might rule differently if the cops drill a hole in something and bolt the tracker in place. But would a court find differently if cops managed to attach a hidden camera to a fence which ran along the property line of your home? And whether attaching a camera or a listening device in a barely public space would be different from a GPS tracker?


Doesn't it end exactly where private property begins? Can I walk up to your car and put a "Michelle Bachmann For President" bumper sticker on it?

Can I post a "Re-elect Obama!" sign on your fence?

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 10:56 AM
I dunno. IIRC, at least one court drew a distinction between attaching something to the exterior of a car, as opposed to putting it inside the car. So is something attached by a magnet to the exterior of a car "on" your property? You could probably bring in a physicist to explain that there is some about space (a micron or two?) between your car and the magnet sticking to it. How much space is enough space?

The particular case this reminds me of is one in DC. I believe Bricker has done a couple of threads about it. There several issues involved related to police actions and what needs a warrant, and who knows what else because IANAL. As I understand it, the cops attached a tracking device to a car, and they could have collected exactly the same information without the need of a warrant had they been willing to expend to resources to follow these people (on public streets) 24/7 with live cops. Again presumably, if they had some kind of robot helicopter flying after the car 24/7, a warrant wouldn't have been needed. But instead they stuck a tracker/transmitter under the car to send the same data. So I gotta assume the defense lawyers are bringing up the issue of property rights.

I also have to wonder -- what if these guys had cell phones with GPS built in? Could the police have tracked those without a warrant? They wouldn't even have to attach an external device to do it, as long as the cell phone was turned on.

David42
07-24-2011, 11:12 AM
If someone's under your car, you can't see where there hands are, nor can you tell if it's someone from the neighborhood or a stranger, unless you are under there with them.

Either answer the question or not, but don't change the facts of the question in order to show I am wrong. In the scenario, the car owner knows it is a stranger and he can see that his hands are up under the bumper.

I don't the the "hiding" part is an issue at all. Do you object if police put a hidden surveillance camera in a park at a place where there've been a lot of muggings? Do you object to the FBI setting up hidden cameras across the street from foreign embassies?

If they mount it on my private property without my permission, yes I have a problem.

The REAL question, IMO, is where does your property end and and "public space" begins. Presumably this GPS unit was attached to the car with a magnet, or perhaps strapped on to a strut or something under the car. At a wild guess, I would imagine the courts might rule differently if the cops drill a hole in something and bolt the tracker in place. But would a court find differently if cops managed to attach a hidden camera to a fence which ran along the property line of your home? And whether attaching a camera or a listening device in a barely public space would be different from a GPS tracker?

As to your last point -- are you joking? You want evidence that society has embraced technology? Look around. There is a consumer indistry now for surveillance equipment -- nanny cams, Lowjack devices for kids, etc. People LOVE spying on other people. They're just not so happy about when they're spied upon.

Just because some people violate the privacy of others does not strip anyone of his or her right to privacy, no matter how many people "love spying." Practically everyone dislikes their privacy being invaded. Lots of people punch other people in the nose, too, should we eliminate battery as a crime because so many like to fight?

No, I am not joking, I am wondering if the supposed definition of society here is from the perspective of those who have technology, or from the perspective of those who don't.

Less than 46% of blacks do not have a broadband connection. Less than 40% of Hispanics have it. Whites and Asians are about 65% and 67% hooked up, respectively.

88% of households with an income over $150,000 have broadband.

35% of households with an income under 25,000 have it.

By the yardstick of Broadband access, if you want to call wealthy Whites and Asians "society" then maybe the statement is correct that society has embraced this technology. I suspect that poor blacks and hispanics would see it differently.

David42
07-24-2011, 11:25 AM
I dunno. IIRC, at least one court drew a distinction between attaching something to the exterior of a car, as opposed to putting it inside the car. So is something attached by a magnet to the exterior of a car "on" your property? You could probably bring in a physicist to explain that there is some about space (a micron or two?) between your car and the magnet sticking to it. How much space is enough space?

Next up: A car's engine parts aren't attached to each other because of tiny fractions of microns between molecules.

The particular case this reminds me of is one in DC. I believe Bricker has done a couple of threads about it. There several issues involved related to police actions and what needs a warrant, and who knows what else because IANAL. As I understand it, the cops attached a tracking device to a car, and they could have collected exactly the same information without the need of a warrant had they been willing to expend to resources to follow these people (on public streets) 24/7 with live cops. Again presumably, if they had some kind of robot helicopter flying after the car 24/7, a warrant wouldn't have been needed. But instead they stuck a tracker/transmitter under the car to send the same data. So I gotta assume the defense lawyers are bringing up the issue of property rights.

The fact is that no police agency in the U.S. has even close to enough manpower to watch the huge numbers of people 24/7 that this technology would allow them to. It is not a case of replacing legitimate police activity that they already do with manpower with technology. It is an issue of expanding police activities with an ability they did not have before.

I also have to wonder -- what if these guys had cell phones with GPS built in? Could the police have tracked those without a warrant? They wouldn't even have to attach an external device to do it, as long as the cell phone was turned on.

The right to property includes the right to exclude others from it. Let the government buy their own cell phones. Unless they have a good reason for it, in which case they can get a warrant. I can think of no situation of extended surveillance where there are exigent circumstances...in other words, extended surveillance also means there is plenty of time to get the warrant and they have no worries of destruction of evidence.

The exposure to the public idea means, to boil it down, if the public can do it, then the police can do it without a warrant.

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 11:44 AM
Either answer the question or not, but don't change the facts of the question in order to show I am wrong. In the scenario, the car owner knows it is a stranger and he can see that his hands are up under the bumper.

What question? What facts? I made up the scenario of a member of the public crawling under a car, and it is FAR more reasonable to assume that someone who glances over and notices this doesn't see either their face of their hands. You threw in the idea of the owner seeing the person, which AFAICT, is totally irrelevant to the questions you raise in any case. I certainly would have been better for the real car owner HAD he actually witnessed it, as he might have found the tracking device.



[QUOTE=David42;14058474]If they mount it on my private property without my permission, yes I have a problem.

Hence my point about the real question -- where does your property end and public space begin?


Just because some people violate the privacy of others does not strip anyone of his or her right to privacy, no matter how many people "love spying." Practically everyone dislikes their privacy being invaded. Lots of people punch other people in the nose, too, should we eliminate battery as a crime because so many like to fight?

No, I am not joking, I am wondering if the supposed definition of society here is from the perspective of those who have technology, or from the perspective of those who don't.

Less than 46% of blacks do not have a broadband connection. Less than 40% of Hispanics have it. Whites and Asians are about 65% and 67% hooked up, respectively.

88% of households with an income over $150,000 have broadband.

35% of households with an income under 25,000 have it.

By the yardstick of Broadband access, if you want to call wealthy Whites and Asians "society" then maybe the statement is correct that society has embraced this technology. I suspect that poor blacks and hispanics would see it differently.

The comment of yours that I was addressing was, "I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology." You didn't say anything about privacy rights.

You didn't even limit the comment to surveillance tech. I decided that's what you meant, but I was apparently wrong, because all the sudden you started talking about broadband and poverty.

Are you suggesting that poor people don't like technology because they can't afford it? What exactly do you mean by "society" "embracing technology"? What is your point with this? I am missing it entirely.

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 11:57 AM
Next up: A car's engine parts aren't attached to each other because of tiny fractions of microns between molecules.



The fact is that no police agency in the U.S. has even close to enough manpower to watch the huge numbers of people 24/7 that this technology would allow them to. It is not a case of replacing legitimate police activity that they already do with manpower with technology. It is an issue of expanding police activities with an ability they did not have before.



The right to property includes the right to exclude others from it. Let the government buy their own cell phones. Unless they have a good reason for it, in which case they can get a warrant. I can think of no situation of extended surveillance where there are exigent circumstances...in other words, extended surveillance also means there is plenty of time to get the warrant and they have no worries of destruction of evidence.

The exposure to the public idea means, to boil it down, if the public can do it, then the police can do it without a warrant.

Police do not have the manpower to follow everyone. But the police in a large city like DC DO have the manpower to follow a few people. However, this is not my point. The police position is apparently that attaching this bug was simply a cheaper way of following them, and provided no more information than they could have gotten through legal human surveillance.

Do you also own the radio waves that are emanating from your cell phone and going... everywhere within a couple of miles? The police could tune into that without ever coming near you. There are some privacy laws against listening in on conversations, and police would absolutely need a warrant to do that, but today's smart phones are transmitting a whole lot more than conversations.

In the broadest sense I agree with you that these police actions are troubling. This leads me to think that privacy laws need to be upgraded and strengthened, not necessarily that courts should simply decide that current law is "close enough" to cover all of these possible scenarios.

David42
07-24-2011, 12:11 PM
Police do not have the manpower to follow everyone. But the police in a large city like DC DO have the manpower to follow a few people. However, this is not my point. The police position is apparently that attaching this bug was simply a cheaper way of following them, and provided no more information than they could have gotten through legal human surveillance. In a short term surveillance, this is true. However, Police themselves point out that long term 24/7 manual surveillance isn't possible. Sooner or later, they do lose track of their quarry, as long as they aren't willing to blow their cover. Once their suspect or person of interest knows what's going on, the game is up and the cop's hand is forced. Suspects identifying undercover surveillance means no more information is going to be had by that technique, generally. Of course here and there someone is really stupid and continues his activities...

Do you also own the radio waves that are emanating from your cell phone and going... everywhere within a couple of miles? The police could tune into that without ever coming near you. There are some privacy laws against listening in on conversations, and police would absolutely need a warrant to do that, but today's smart phones are transmitting a whole lot more than conversations.

Let's say the GPS on your phone is inside your house. Can they just triangulate it like that, or do they need a warrant to determine whether or not you are in your home? First they'd need to know you where in public, and then locating you by your phone's GPS might be ok. But to continually monitor it would mean eventually they are searching for the telephone in your home.

In the broadest sense I agree with you that these police actions are troubling. This leads me to think that privacy laws need to be upgraded and strengthened, not necessarily that courts should simply decide that current law is "close enough" to cover all of these possible scenarios.

It probably is time to reexamine the thinking behind searches and seizures as they relate to mass technology. The reasoning employed worked alright for the limited technology it was conceived for, but its beginning to not work out so well.

I would point out that some states, such as California, have passed laws that the police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a private automobile.

David42
07-24-2011, 12:24 PM
Car alarms, which go off by near proximity of a person to a car who doesn't even have to touch it, are apparently reasonable. They may be annoying when they are too sensitive, but it seems we have weighed that annoyance against the right to secure your property and found the right to secure your property to be more weighty than the annoyance.

If we haven't, why haven't car alarms been outlawed as a public nuisance?

What would an undercover cop do if he trips a car alarm in attempting to attach a GPS? I'm betting he cancels his plans, runs, and hopes the car owner doesn't see him or thinks he is a common criminal. He sure isn't going to try to further blow his cover. Again, game is over when their cover is blown.

David42
07-24-2011, 12:26 PM
A stranger has crawled under your car looking for a hide-a-key. You spot him and think:

A) 'Ah, that's just as things ought to be, I exposed the undercarriage of my car to the public, he can look all he likes.'

B) 'WTF is that guy doing under my car? he surely can't have any business under there. Damn, he's running his hands behind the bumpers, is he f'n TRYIN' TO STEAL MY CAR?'

What is the response of the reasonable person?

This question. Please answer or not, as you choose, but don't change the question and then answer.

Rick
07-24-2011, 12:39 PM
So I work in an auto shop and probably see the underside of my car more often than most people.
If I have my car on the hoist and find a tracking unit can I legally remove it? Throw it in the trash? Put it on the car on next hoist? Smash the shit out it with a BFH?*
(and no I don't need answers fast)





*big fucking hammer

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 12:45 PM
This question. Please answer or not, as you choose, but don't change the question and then answer.

I took this post to be you changing my scenario, which was posted first.

However, I will answer.

Since your scenario explicitly says the stranger is looking for a key, my response would be entirely based on whether there was in fact a key to be found. If there was, I would call the cops in a probably vain attempt to catch him before he left, though frankly I don't know if the cops would have the right to search him for my key. And if he stole the car while I was waiting for the cops to show up, then I would call them again and report that.

Most likely I would get the locks changed. What else would one do?

Boyo Jim
07-24-2011, 01:16 PM
So I work in an auto shop and probably see the underside of my car more often than most people.
If I have my car on the hoist and find a tracking unit can I legally remove it? Throw it in the trash? Put it on the car on next hoist? Smash the shit out it with a BFH?*
(and no I don't need answers fast)





*big fucking hammer

I have a vague recollection of a case of someone being prosecuted for detroying a police listening device, so I wouldn't take a hammer to it.

I dunno, call the cops and report a suspected bomb? Just point it out to the owner? Keep your mouth shut? Good question.

David42
07-24-2011, 02:16 PM
So I work in an auto shop and probably see the underside of my car more often than most people.
If I have my car on the hoist and find a tracking unit can I legally remove it? Throw it in the trash? Put it on the car on next hoist? Smash the shit out it with a BFH?*
(and no I don't need answers fast)

*big fucking hammer

I can't wait for the case wherein the suspect finds the GPS and puts it on someone else's car.

David42
07-24-2011, 02:30 PM
The comment of yours that I was addressing was, "I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology." You didn't say anything about privacy rights.

You didn't even limit the comment to surveillance tech. I decided that's what you meant, but I was apparently wrong, because all the sudden you started talking about broadband and poverty.

Are you suggesting that poor people don't like technology because they can't afford it? What exactly do you mean by "society" "embracing technology"? What is your point with this? I am missing it entirely.

I think we got a bit mixed up here. Someone said that all this police technology is ok for the reason that "society" has embraced technology. I'd have not argued against what society has embraced if instead "A large segment of our society has embraced technology," had been said.

David42
07-24-2011, 02:38 PM
I have a vague recollection of a case of someone being prosecuted for detroying a police listening device, so I wouldn't take a hammer to it.

I dunno, call the cops and report a suspected bomb? Just point it out to the owner? Keep your mouth shut? Good question.

I think generally once you attach something to someone else's property it becomes theirs. I know this is true in Landlord/tenant law in my state--for instance, if you change all the light fixtures on a rental property they have to stay when you leave.

But Imagine this: A person places a bumper sticker on someone's car but claims to retain ownership of the bumper sticker. What a fool when he says "Hey, I want to take my bumper sticker home now. Since your car is attached to it, I am gonna have to drive your car now in order to exercise control over my bumper sticker. Hand the keys over, I'd like to take my bumper sticker home now."

I would think that attaching something to someone's car means you have gifted them whatever you attach. it's the only logical way to handle the bumper sticker scenario. Now if this is true, then the police are now using your GPS to monitor you. And if they retrieve the GPS they have then clearly seized it.

UltraVires
07-24-2011, 02:46 PM
I dunno. IIRC, at least one court drew a distinction between attaching something to the exterior of a car, as opposed to putting it inside the car. So is something attached by a magnet to the exterior of a car "on" your property? You could probably bring in a physicist to explain that there is some about space (a micron or two?) between your car and the magnet sticking to it. How much space is enough space?


To me that is absurd. It would be akin to a cop issuing you a speeding ticket because you are traveling at 186,000mph. After all, that's the speed at which the earth (with you on it) is traveling around the sun.

Or if I go inside an airport carrying a gun, I could explain to security how I am really not carrying the gun because several micrometers separate it from my body.

Implicit
07-24-2011, 08:55 PM
I think we got a bit mixed up here. Someone said that all this police technology is ok for the reason that "society" has embraced technology. I'd have not argued against what society has embraced if instead "A large segment of our society has embraced technology," had been said.

What I said in response to your Big Brother hysteria was that technology has made privacy an illusion. That's the trade off we've made for efficiency and convenience. The technology is out there and there isn't any going back. Demanding laws to protect what can't be protected is pointless.

I had thought you created this thread to discuss the wheres and whyfors of the surveillance technology since you specifically stated that you weren't interested in the legal aspects. Instead, you want people to answer your bumper fondling question, so I'll be on my way.

David42
07-24-2011, 10:51 PM
What I said in response to your Big Brother hysteria was that technology has made privacy an illusion. That's the trade off we've made for efficiency and convenience. The technology is out there and there isn't any going back. Demanding laws to protect what can't be protected is pointless.

I had thought you created this thread to discuss the wheres and whyfors of the surveillance technology since you specifically stated that you weren't interested in the legal aspects. Instead, you want people to answer your bumper fondling question, so I'll be on my way.

You mean for YOU privacy is an illusion. Many of the rest of us aren't interested in throwing away the fourth amendment.

Of course, if you wind up on the wrong end of a prosecution and you're looking at the fourth amendment or prison, you will see it quit differently.