Re: Big Brother One Step Closer?
James Richard Tyrer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.cafe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Neil Stevens wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday May 12, 2003 11:31, Andreas Pour wrote: > >>The Washington Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether police >>require a warrant to attach a GPS device to a vehicle. >>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/121572_gps12.html >> >>The facts in the case, unfortunately, are very bad, and unfortunately it >>seems as though the government could have obtained a warrant if it had >>tried. Now the government will make some lame arguments about, "but the >>killer will get off". >> >>If a GPS device is OK without a warrant, I see no reason why a >>microphone and camera are not also OK without a warrant. >> >>The race to totalitarianism continues . . . . > > > Do you think that police should need a warrant before following a car? > before following a person? > No, I don't as long as it is on public property. The question of the right to privacy in your automobile is not clearly settled in US law. My personal opinion is that a warrant should be required to enter your automobile. So, attaching something to it is probably a gray area that needs to be decided by the court. Note the important distinction here: the GPS device *can* be used to follow an automobile on private property without the owner's permission. This is an important distinction. The question appears to be if this is any different from attaching a RF beeper to an automobile to make it easier to follow. -- JRT Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected] http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.