Well, in this case, the government was offered it on a silver platter and refused to take possession. Nevertheless, things that are subject to subpoena and things that are required by law are in entirely different categories. The OP is about the latter.
So what? Do you claim it would be an unconstitutional violation of peoples’ “liberty interests” to require such devices on cars?
No difference vis-a-vis the principle that you and others espouse.
In some ways they are different, and in some ways they are the same.
There are posters who apparently subscribe to the principle that the government should not be able to track peoples’ movements. That principle is offended by the government subpoenaing information as well as by collecting the information itself.
Yes. That is what I claim.
Actually, that is exactly the reason they are different.
A subpoena must be presented to a judge, and, presumably, be supported by evidence. It is a legal maneuver in response to a suspected crime. Requiring every car owner to submit, a priori, to a system that tracks and records his movement is not remotely the same thing.
Perhaps if the information was only available to the government if subpoenaed, you might have a case. Maybe. But since that isn’t the way of things, I fail to see the comparison. It is absolutely none of their business how and where I choose to move about, absent suspicion of some crime being committed.
Which section of the Constitution?
I don’t see why.
That’s not necessarily true. I think you are confusing subpoenas and warrants.
That seems to be part of the original poster’s proposal.
I think you could start with the 4th amendment.
Of course you don’t.
I don’t understand the civil liberty angle here. Driving is not a fundamental human right, you’re still free to come and go as you please as long as you walk or take the bus. Most people seem to agree that for the safety of the public, one must submit to some scrutiny by the authorities when operating a motor vehicle on public roads, If you feel your right to come and go as you please extends to your car as well, then I guess we should just scrap motor vehicle registration, insurance, the highway code, age limits for drivers, vehicle safety regulations, and all that too?
Would you care to cite some case law?
You might try to explain it. Believe it or not, I will consider your explanation in good faith.
Perhaps we’re both confused. All of these definitions refer to a subpoena as a command for a *person *to appear in court, not for a business to surrender evidence. It is also called a court order. Who issues those, do you suppose?
Where, exactly?
Would you?
I have tried to explain it, as have others. I’m sorry, but I really don’t feel like repeating the same explanation over and over. I simply can’t think of a better way to explain it, so if you don’t understand my point, I guess you never will.
Err… no, they’re not.
In my jurisdiction, a judicial officer can issue many kinds of subpoenas. That would include a judge; a clerk; or an attorney. Often a subpoena can be issued by an arbitrator or an ALJ (administrative law judge). Frequently, a subpoena can be issued by a grand jury. I don’t know whether a grand jury subpoena needs to be ok’d by a judge.
Post #14
The question here is where RFID lies along the continuum of:
complete anonymity —> some scrutiny —>everpresent monitoring
I think RFID (or GPS) tracking is well past “some scrutiny” and ventures into EM territory.
Authorities are given the ability to monitor us when they have a compelling reason to do so. I don’t think the OP is even close to giving a compelling reason for this level of scrutiny of our everyday activities.
The government is there to provide for OUR welfare, not to get away with whatever we haven’t specifically prevented them from doing to us.
No. I have told you that my view is an educated guess. You are the one who made a specific claim that a particular law would be unconstitutional. It’s up to you to provide cites to back up your claim.
Not really.
You said this:
I said this:
You said this:
Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all.
I guess not.
You made a specific claim that this kind of survellance would NOT be considered unConstitutional by the courts. You back this up only by saying it’s an “educated guess.” OK, fine, if that kind of cite works for you…it’s my “edcuated guess” that this kind of survellance WOULD be considered unConstitutional by the courts.
As far as the rest of your post, my point is that in practice, there may be no different between the two kinds of data we are talking about. But in principle, there is a huge difference. It is the principle part that you don’t seem to get, and I’m not sure how to explain to you. Perhaps someone else can do better.
I think I was pretty clear from the beginning that I was unsure. Further, I described an analogous law that apparantly is NOT unconstitutional.
I think you have that backwards. What you mean to say is that while in principle there is no difference between a license plate and an EZ-Pass-like device, there is a huge practical difference.
Right?
I didn’t think the law you cited was analogous, and I explained why.
Actually, no. I will revise what I said to the following: While in reality, an EZ-Pass-like device might be more practical and/or expedient when trying to catch criminals, in principle, it is wrong to track the movements of innocent citizens on the presumption that they might commit a crime.