Re: Big Brother One Step Closer?

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:21:09AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Another huge advantage of having to tail the guy is the high cost.  High
> cost means, it isn't done unless necessary.  Low cost means it will be
> routine.  Heck, the government could even legally require each car to have
> a GPS device, and it can constantly monitor, and record forever, which
> cars go where.

It would be highly inefficient to actually track all that data. Sure, this
saves money when used in moderation, but tracking the entire nation (or
world?) would be virtually impossible.

> But it gets worse.  Once you allow warrant-less tracking of cars, why not
> of people?  The government could make the same argument - we could just
> have someone follow him.  To which you might respond, yeah, but not inside
> private property, or remote areas.  But a GPS device will also track the
> car onto private property and in remote areas.
> 
> So, in principle, if this is OK, then a law requiring all citizens to wear GPS
> devices and enabling the government to at all times monitor your movements is
> also OK.

No, laws that require all citizens to wear a GPS device would not be okay by
me. I totally agree that the government could do bad things with GPS, but
that's not a reason to be against government use of GPS. We allow cops to
have guns, after all.

And please note that we're discussing this on the single-most trackable,
sniffable, traceable medium of all: Echelon^WInternet. 

> How will it ever be possible to overthrow a tyrannical government with such
> technology in place?

Ask the countless revolutionaries of the past? Governments that get
overthrown usually have the superior goods.

> This case is very important.
> 
> As to, "is it a privacy issue", sure - the story even gives some examples, how
> would you like it if your girlfriend / mother / friend / enemy / competitor put
> a GPS device on your car or person?  I would hate it 100 times worse if the
> government did it.

Are you kidding me?

People here are actually *paying* telco companies to enable a wireless
services so that their friends and family get a SMS message when they enter
a certain location. Accuracy: couple of miles in rural areas, about 60ft in
urban areas. ( http://www.o2.nl/spotter/ )

> Moreover, I don't see how that is not a search.  Monitoring a telephone
> conversation is a search, so is monitoring your whereabouts.  The act is
> subject to the search provisions of the Constitution.

Well, I tend to agree that the use of GPS would require a search warrant.

On the other hand, a warrant is pretty useless in that case, as you'd need
to find the person first, right?

And, by your logic, isn't a "wanted!" picture up at the local precinct a
search as well? Or a "did you see.." bulletin on the radio/TV? Those don't
require warrants AFAIK (correct me if that's not true).. does it matter
whether the government finds you through Cousin Vinnie, Larry King Live or
some GPS device?

Rob

PS: I need to file a patent for TEMPEST protective car wax and clothing,
just in case.
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+wMlltppIl2G1SjcRAr17AJ9rfV1UN2YnTcsSEYhCXf3EfO+CRQCgj0jx
/ssesOHI3IQU/JpC9N/SUa0=
=xjNz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----