USA No longer king of Freedom - DPChallenge Forums

10/14/2010 02:55:00 PM · #127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Defining "left wing" and "right wing" though would probably take many words because there are a number of areas to cover and I'm not sure I'd be up to the task.

Then what is the point of throwing those terms around? And why would you use the phrase "right-wing nutjob" when referring to what seems to me to be people who simply may not agree with you on a particular issue?

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/14/2010 03:41:03 PM · #128

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Defining "left wing" and "right wing" though would probably take many words because there are a number of areas to cover and I'm not sure I'd be up to the task.

Then what is the point of throwing those terms around? And why would you use the phrase "right-wing nutjob" when referring to what seems to me to be people who simply may not agree with you on a particular issue?

Well, it's like pornography. I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. :)

K3Master

Pentax K-3

10/14/2010 04:10:25 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Defining "left wing" and "right wing" though would probably take many words because there are a number of areas to cover and I'm not sure I'd be up to the task.

Then what is the point of throwing those terms around? And why would you use the phrase "right-wing nutjob" when referring to what seems to me to be people who simply may not agree with you on a particular issue?

Well, it's like pornography. I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. :)

Even that's subjective.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/14/2010 04:22:47 PM · #130

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Even that's subjective.

Yup, subject to place and time. I'm pretty much far left these days, unless I'm in Berkeley, where I'm center right. When Eisenhower (or Nixon or Regan for that matter) was in office, he was seen as being on the Conservative side of the public as a whole, but today many of his policies would bee seen as being clear signs of being a closet socialist, as public opinion has shifted to the right. Unlike astral navigation, there are no fixed points to navigate by.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/14/2010 04:23:58 PM · #131

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Even that's subjective.

*Especially* that; it's practically a textbook illustration of subjectivity :-)

R.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/14/2010 05:04:47 PM · #132

Wasn't that my point? :D

Spork99

OM System OM-1

10/14/2010 06:26:16 PM · #133

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:
It would be fairly simple to use a wireless network to then track people by estimating their location based on signal strength from various towers.
They already do that with your cell phone, though it's getting even more precise as cell phones become GPS-enabled. They can also track your vehicle through those pre-paid fare transponders ...
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Personally, I think he's just a wing-nut.

My point exactly GPS just makes it more precise...

How many of you have a vehicle with OnStar (or a similar thing from a different mfg)...That's basically a GPS cell phone built into your car.

The fare transponders are a bit different, they use an RFID tag, though it typically has some kind of battery that boosts the signal to transmit and ID number associated with your account to the stationary receiver in the toll booth. There's no reason that such a device couldn't be adapted and made portable for tracking purposes with out modifying the transponder in the car.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/14/2010 06:27:58 PM · #134

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:
The courts don't always agree.

Absolutely, and until this matter is resolved by the Supreme Court, all we are doing is pissing in the wind.

Ray

Isn't that what these forums are for?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/14/2010 06:54:31 PM · #135

Originally posted by Spork99:

My point exactly GPS just makes it more precise...

Actually, the main legal difference between a GPS device and the "beeper" referenced in the previous court decision is that that latter requires "active surveillance" by an actual person (police officer), essentially "shadowing" the suspect from a safe distance.

The GPS device in the later case involved the ability for the police to simply record all movements robotically; in theory, they can track and record everyone's movements at all times. If you think of "search" as finding out information about someone, then being able to record someone's movements is a search.

Is anyone here willing to voluntarily wear one of those anklets they lock onto parolees or sex offenders and let the police record your movements, and if not, why not?

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/14/2010 07:23:46 PM · #136

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:
My point exactly GPS just makes it more precise...

Actually, the main legal difference between a GPS device and the "beeper" referenced in the previous court decision is that that latter requires "active surveillance" by an actual person (police officer), essentially "shadowing" the suspect from a safe distance.

The GPS device in the later case involved the ability for the police to simply record all movements robotically; in theory, they can track and record everyone's movements at all times. If you think of "search" as finding out information about someone, then being able to record someone's movements is a search.

Is anyone here willing to voluntarily wear one of those anklets they lock onto parolees or sex offenders and let the police record your movements, and if not, why not?

But the court ruling also made a clear distinction that the car was being tracked and not the person. They asserted the car has no expectation of privacy and in this case the car did not even go to places where there was an expectation of privacy. So I'd draw an important distinction between tracking a car via GPS and tracking you via an ankle monitor and GPS.

David Ey

Nikon D80

10/14/2010 07:56:55 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Look, they knew who the crook was, what he was up to and he needed to be caught. In fact, he needed his dang head chopped off.....BUT, only a fool would believe they were concerned with where the CAR went. Dang man, you know that.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/14/2010 07:59:16 PM · #138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:
My point exactly GPS just makes it more precise...

Actually, the main legal difference between a GPS device and the "beeper" referenced in the previous court decision is that that latter requires "active surveillance" by an actual person (police officer), essentially "shadowing" the suspect from a safe distance.

The GPS device in the later case involved the ability for the police to simply record all movements robotically; in theory, they can track and record everyone's movements at all times. If you think of "search" as finding out information about someone, then being able to record someone's movements is a search.

Is anyone here willing to voluntarily wear one of those anklets they lock onto parolees or sex offenders and let the police record your movements, and if not, why not?

But the court ruling also made a clear distinction that the car was being tracked and not the person. They asserted the car has no expectation of privacy and in this case the car did not even go to places where there was an expectation of privacy. So I'd draw an important distinction between tracking a car via GPS and tracking you via an ankle monitor and GPS.

The car and not the person? Isn't it expected that the owner of that car will be in it when it's moving? Saying the FBI is only following the car and not the people is pretty lame. Do judges actually fall for this carp?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/14/2010 08:02:11 PM · #139

Originally posted by David Ey:

What happened to "Judge not"?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/14/2010 08:06:22 PM · #140

Originally posted by Jac:

Do note that the dude wasn't convicted for driving. The tracker was used to find his hidden grow site (which was probably on public property somewhere in some forest). But following a person's car is only a very rough analog to following a person, no? You know they went to the mall, but don't know what they did there? You don't know who they talked to or what they said. You don't even really know if they were at the mall in the first place because they could have loaned the car out.

The same info could have been had with an officer tailing the individual. As mentioned in the brief, the supreme court has already upheld that such technology is not a "search".

David, actually they EXACTLY wanted to know where the car went because they assumed sooner or later the car would be at the grow site. They didn't know where that was.

Message edited by author 2010-10-14 20:06:44.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/14/2010 08:08:55 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

By that theory the person who got a parking ticket and fought it based on the claim that, since the ticket was left on the windshield, it was the car that was being cited rather than the operator, should have won, and he shouldn't have to pay the fine because of the improper "service."

Also, if it's only the car being tracked, the evidence would seem useless, since the car owner could have lent the car (or it could have been "borrowed" when he forgot the keys in the car) to any number of people who conducted nefarious deeds without his knowledge or consent.

Message edited by author 2010-10-14 20:09:36.

rooum

10/14/2010 08:09:08 PM · #142

Originally posted by David Ey:

Look, they knew who the crook was, what he was up to and he needed to be caught. In fact, he needed his dang head chopped off....

Well, maybe. Or a damn good shooting in the head perhaps. God forbid the Police might actually make mistakes of course. . There are very good reasons not to allow the authorities to erode human rights to the point where the police are a law unto themselves. Amazingly, in the UK at the moment, there is a large push by the police to petition the present government to change the laws so that it will be impossible to bring any lawsuits against them. It wastes a lot of time and money they say. Sadly, with this government and the current climate i fear they will go along with that.

10/14/2010 08:12:09 PM · #143

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the court ruling also made a clear distinction that the car was being tracked and not the person. They asserted the car has no expectation of privacy and in this case the car did not even go to places where there was an expectation of privacy. So I'd draw an important distinction between tracking a car via GPS and tracking you via an ankle monitor and GPS.

By that theory the person who got a parking ticket and fought it based on the claim that, since the ticket was left on the windshield, it was the car that was being cited rather than the operator, should have won, and he shouldn't have to pay the fine because of the improper "service."

Also, if it's only the car being tracked, the evidence would seem useless, since the car owner could have lent the car (or it could have been "borrowed" when he forgot the keys in the car) to any number of people who conducted nefarious deeds without his knowledge or consent.

I am assuming that after the grow site was found proper police work was done to get the conviction that it was, in fact, him growing it. I agree it would be a pretty weak case to say the guy's car was there and thus he is guilty. The tracker was only used to initially find the site.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/14/2010 08:13:46 PM · #144

For those interested, the summary of United States vs. Knotts...

Monitoring the beeper signals did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on respondent's part, and thus there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment. The beeper surveillance amounted principally to following an automobile on public streets and highways. A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements. While respondent had the traditional expectation of privacy within a dwelling place insofar as his cabin was concerned, such expectation of privacy would not have extended to the visual observation from public places of the automobile arriving on his premises after leaving a public highway, or to movements of objects such as the chloroform container outside the cabin. The fact that the officers relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting their sensory faculties with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case. There is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the chloroform container within the cabin, or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin.

I always find this stuff fascinating.

David Ey

Nikon D80

10/14/2010 08:13:54 PM · #145

Well, I didn't mean without due process for pete's sake.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/14/2010 08:16:53 PM · #146

Anyways, I'm going to buy a GPS tracker and stick it underneath your car Doc
and it will lead me to your secret photography spots. eheh :)

Nothing you can do about it because I'm following your camera and not you. :P

I'm just messing Doc. I've nothing more to add to this thread except that
it was a good discussion.

I now check my truck for gps devices because I don't want the RCMP to find my
40 acres of endogeic, epigeic and anecic varieties. ;)

rooum

10/14/2010 08:21:03 PM · #147

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, I didn't mean without due process for pete's sake.

Hum. That wasn't quite what i was getting at but never mind.

Anyway, don't mind me. There's an interesting discussion here but i'm far too tired tonight to participate well. Put me on ignore. That's what my body is trying to do to my brain right now. zzz

Message edited by author 2010-10-14 20:26:18.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/14/2010 08:40:04 PM · #148

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The tracker was only used to initially find the site.

Which means if it is found to have been an illegal search -- the discover of evidence without a warrant -- the whole case will be thrown out because of inadmissable evidence.

Again, why the **** didn't they just go get a warrant -- it's the inability of those wielding lethal power to exercise common and reasonable judgement in a non-stress situation which really concerns me ... Alfred Hitchcock never drove over 50 MPH because he was always deathly afraid of the police, since they were the only people with the legal right to murder you.