Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Geezer on 17/10/2010 00:39:52
-
The local gendarmes might be slapping a GPS tracking device on to your car - no warrant required.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants
At first I thought this was pretty outrageous, but now I'm not so sure. After all, the cops can tail you any time they like and they don't need a warrant to do it. Also, the bad guys can use as much technology as they like, so do the law enforcers not have a right to keep up with them?
I'm retiring to my underground bunker now [;D]
-
Any extra room?
-
Can I publish a notice here?
Anyone who wishes to fix a tracker to my car may do so provided that they agree to pay me rent for the space. My charges start at a penny per year. Anyone doing so without my express permission will incur the penalty rate of a billion pounds per hour or part thereof.
Attaching any device to any vehicle of mine counts as acceptance of these terms.
-
The law 'system', after many centuries of practice and development, is supposed to consist of three separate and independent functions. These are the establishment of laws, the apprehension of those believed to have broken those laws, and the trial of those who are believed to have broken those laws, along with their subsequent punishment if found guilty of breaking those laws.
The key feature of this scheme is the clear separation and demarcation between the three different roles in the system, this being to ensure that the system is impartial, treats everyone identically and cannot be used to unfairly persecute any particular group of people.
Thus, the police forces, who are responsible for the apprehension of those believed to have broken a law, should have no say in what laws are passed into acceptance and neither should they have any influence over the sentencing of those found to have broken a law, for if they did there would exist a state of affairs where the police, being the enforcers of the law, also get to chose who they persecute and how their targets are punished. In such a state of affairs, the element of impartiality has been removed and the laws have become non-consensual.
On occasion, there will be times when the police force believe they have identified someone who has broken a law but are unable to conclusively prove it. However, if the police believe that conclusive evidence is extant, but not directly available to them, they may apply for a 'warrant' to obtain it. This warrant effectively allows the police to temporarily break the law themselves e.g. to enter private property without invitation (breaking and entering) to search for evidence, or to seize (steal) private property where that property is the evidence. Because the warrant is allowing the police to break the law though, and because it would break impartiality, they cannot grant themselves that right; it must therefore be granted by one of the other two bodies in the law system who act in an overseeing role i.e. the elected representatives, who pass the laws, or the judiciary who, are responsible for establishing guilt and sentencing. In practice, because there are relatively few elected representatives, warrants are generally issued by the judiciary.
So, by being able to attach a tracking device to someone's automobile without the need for a warrant, the police are breaking that person's right to privacy, which is currently not against the law, so there's not quite the issue of the police breaking the law themselves, but it most certainly breaks the principle of impartiality, for there is no judicial oversight to ensure that the police's suspicions and subsequent actions, along with the removal of the suspect's right of privacy are justified; the police are deciding who they persecute.
Of course, if the integrity of the police force was beyond doubt this wouldn't really be a problem but the trouble is that it has been shown many times that this is simply not the case.
-
Perhaps it's a bit academic in the UK? There may already be enough cameras in place that the police could get almost the same result without a GPS tracking device.
I don't think there are quite as many cameras in the US yet, but the numbers are increasing.
-
Your mobile (cell) phone will "grass you up" anyway …
tracking … using the mobile phone - a technique made possible by legislation which since 2005 has obliged operators to "to provide some way to trace calls to 100 meters or less".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/tech_dragnet/
-
There is a right to privacy under Art 8 ECHR / HRA98 and there will no doubt be a test case pretty quickly. And, just guessing here, that if no court order exists to allow the tracking then one would be quite within ones rights to remove tracker and destroy it. Additionally, it would be ok to arrange a service to scan cars for trackers and remove them; ie the organised serious criminals that "the powers that be" claim will be targeted will simply have their cars valeted and checked for trackers on a regular basis. It won't take long for local councils to be using it to track parents home from school to check they are in the catchment zone.
-
It seems odd to me, that the
fuzz police and 'authorities' seem to able to track our every move, but they didn't see the bankers running off with their pockets stuffed full of our money, did they?
-
Mind you, some people don't seem to be terribly concerned about protecting their privacy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html?mod=yhoofront
-
It seems odd to me, that the fuzz police and 'authorities' seem to able to track our every move, but they didn't see the bankers running off with their pockets stuffed full of our money, did they?
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say it's because those in 'authority' had a vested interest in letting the bankers run off with 'loot'...
Of course I'm far too grown up [:P] to think anyone in power would do such a thing! [>:(]