Yeah, you read it correctly...
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
Printable View
Yeah, you read it correctly...
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
Doesn't seem new, more like something that has always been overlooked. On the one hand, I would like law enforcement officials to be able to track suspected criminals (it's not like the government is going to waste their time tracking random citizens), maybe use a warrant system like for searching properties?
Jaywalkers are 'criminals,' you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
It's an extreme example, I know, but you get my point.
I do agree with the warrant thing, though.
Yes but why would law enforcement agencies waste resources (these guys are always short-staffed [not a pun]) to track a jaywalker.
Also jaywalking is a misdemeanor under civil code, not a felony under criminal code, so not criminal :P.
By saying "you get my point," I figured I didn't have to elaborate. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
My point is that definitions such as "criminal" are arbitrary, and not always crystal clear. (See the thread about the Ecuadorian Herbal Medicine Vendor). The "average citizen" is only a loop-hole away from being labeled a criminal, by those who want them to be so, for even the most benign actions. "Jaywalking' was just an example of how the terminology could be exploited.
Never let them put a chip into ur body that serves as a payment methode.
Be wary of technological or biological adjustment you let people make to you.
I agree, which is why a warrant system would put it in the hands of judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Thank you for your contribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
How can they say you have "no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements." I am pretty sure everyone has an expectation that the government isn't tracking them, and their reasons are all reasonable.
Correct, however the key words there are "would be," and the important thing to consider is that, as yet, there isn't a warrant system for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I could see how this could be useful to the government, but it's not like they often need to track suspected theives and murderers. This will almost exclusively be used for tracking drug dealers. Drugs shouldn't be illegal so I see no real reason for them to have this kind of right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The potential risk outweighs the potential use. It's not likely they are going to track random citizens, but what about people who speak out against the government? What about people that the government doesn't like or are just suspicious of.
I don't think that this will make the world much safer. It's just more big brother garbage and I am against it on principal.
Why does the government waste our tax dollars tracking people who grow marijuana for god's sake? Complete waste of money and time for starters.
I shouldn't have to buy a fence to have the same amount of privacy that other people do. That's not equal
Because the government can't profit off of weed that is grown in people's backyards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay12341235
Well it's not my country I'm not going to make a fuss about it :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
All the drug stuff is completely beside the point too. Whether you agree with the current drug policy or not, nobody can in their right mind support organized crime, and organized crime is where must of the drug supply comes from.
Some of you seem concerned about loopholes that could endanger the privacy of normal citizens, but criminals are well aware of the legal loopholes that keep them out of jail. Law enforcement has a tough enough time navigating the red tape to try and bring organized crime down and being able to track suspects is a pretty powerful tool to accomplish this, lets not tie their hands behind their backs any more than we need to.
I think it is pretty clear that they should get a warrant to do this, and if they did, no one would have problems with it. If someone uses a legal loophole to get out of going to jail, then they are not actually criminals. If you didn't break a law, you didn't break a law. We are not worried about police using a loophole to invade our privacy. We are worried about the police using the power as the law says and invading our privacy. There is no loophole involved. If they are allowed to do this, they can follow people around for any reason they want, which isn't acceptable.
Of course they could tax it if they chose. Some times I wonder how stupid people end up in positions of power in this country. Example: Sarah PalinQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You can murder someone and get away scott free on a technicality, like inadmissible evidence. This is unacceptable and is a huge let-down in the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
A good example that I read the other day, UK intelligence agencies teamed up with Norway (I think) security in a sting to capture terrorists that were responsible for a bombing (who were obviously guilty). They were caught and arrested but later acquitted because of the technicality that British agents had entered Norway under false pretenses, rendering the whole operation unlawful. And now the men responsible are free (well this was quite a few years ago).
Completely unacceptable.
Edit: Gah I'm mixing up two different stories, the Norway thing was an art theft from a museum. There was a sting to recover the stolen art and capture the thieves, but they were later acquitted because the british agents entered the country under false pretenses. They're still thieves...
You're thinking small, Spart. It's not about loopholes, and it's not specifically about how this tool can aid the feds. It's more about desensitization. It is about the 'slippery-slope' phenomenon. It is about 'what happens' when theses personal infringements (in the name of 'security') become increasingly acceptable to the general public. How far is the government willing to go to catch the bad guy. You talk about 'not tying their hands.' How far are you, personally, willing to let the government go, to catch the bad guy? What if I told you the government was sending out hovering drones with cameras in them, to patrol your neighborhoods, searching for burglary suspects 24/7? At any point in time, there could be a drone passing by your window, maybe not specifically trying to look in your window, but doing so inadvertently, while looking around the perimeter - to search for criminal activity, around the clock? It is a sci-fi scenario, but I'm only using it to illustrate what's wrong with the logic of "well they it makes it easier to catch the bad guys. Don't tie their hands."Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
There has to be a point where saying "well they are just doing it to protect us" is not a good enough excuse. Do you not agree?
They can takes it if they seize it, which is what they are doing. If I am growing weed in my back yard, the only way they can tax it if they do what they did with the guy in the article, by catching me in the act of growing, selling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay123...
Well given that this has always been allowed and people just realized it now, I wouldn't worry too much about the slippery slope thing :P. Another thing is that law enforcement barely has enough resources to effectively battle the important, high profile crime. They don't have time to go around spying on average suburban joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Also video surveillance isn't such a bad idea, maybe not in the residential suburbs but in crowded public areas. Look at how effective London's CCTV system has been.
So the British agents lied to get into the country? Well they shouldn't be doing it, that isn't a technicality, it is the law. When the police are allowed to break the law, you are in all sort of trouble. If evidence isn't admissible, it is because of very good reasons. It is not a loophole or a technicality. If you ignore the 'technicalities" a lot of innocent people will go to jail for crimes they didn't commit.
Yes, the British agents used false names (they were undercover) to get in the country... they were cooperating with Norwegian police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
This doesn't change the fact that the thieves stole the painting and is complete bullshit.
Yes but if the drug policy was changed then it wouldn't be where the drug supply came from. If the law really wants to do something about organized crime the should legalize drugs and regulate them, it would stop far more crime than this would. That would cut at the source rather than just hitting a few individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If law enforcement stopped using most of it's resources fighting a war on drugs they'd have plenty of resources to fight organized crime, and on top of this the crime syndicates would lose their main source of income.
This all comes down to a matter of opinion, whether or not the government should have more power. I think that they have far too much already and misuse it.
Organized crime would still exist without the drug trade, there is so much more for them to exploit (weapons, sex, racketeering, black market goods, extortion, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
Like I said, the drug policy isn't the issue, it's another issue.
I didn't say that it wouldn't, I said that legalizing drugs would do more to stop crime than tracking drug dealers. This technology will mainly be used to track drug dealers, the issues are directly related.
Like I said at the end of my last post, this is another method for giving the government more power. The government already has too much power in this country and misuses it. I don't think they should be given any more power until they show that they can use the power that they have properly. We are already on a slippery slope and have been for about 50 years(at least). What this comes down to is whether you think that the government needs more power to fight crime or if you think(as I do) that the government has misused the power it already has and is responsible for creating much of the crime in this country.
If this was all regulated with warrants as you suggested it wouldn't be such a big deal but in the article it states that they want to be able to do this without a warrant. The government has done many things in recent years to attempt to get more power in unrestricted ways. Like I said if you think that the government needs more power this might not seem so bad, but I disagree and I think many other people in this country do as well.
If they believe an individual is committing a bad crime, they should have to go through the proper channels and get a warrant.
There are two reasons I don't like this. First, as the article stated, this decision says the rich get special privileges because they have fences around their homes. Second, I fear they could use this to find crimes to put people away who were not suspected of any crime beforehand, but who have been targeted for political purposes. If the police don't need a reason to invade your privacy, then they can find reasons after the invasion. And guess what? We all commit crimes. They could potentially put away whoever they wanted.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't become a criminal in order to catch criminals, and that is exactly what the government is trying to do. Once they cross that line into what isn't proper, its the duty of every American to slam the hammer down on them and put them in their place. I don't care how small the infraction is, the government isn't allowed to ignore the constitution of the United States, even if they believe its in our best interest. There is zero tolerance for this kind of bullshit. They must obey the rules or they are not longer a legitimate legal authority.
If a guilty person occasionally gets away without punishment, that is the price we pay for living in a free country. It is far better for a few criminals to go free, than for any innocent person to lose their privacy or be falsely arrested or harassed by the police.