PDA

View Full Version : The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS



Gingersnap
08-25-2010, 01:13 PM
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS

By ADAM COHEN Adam Cohen – 1 hr 30 mins ago

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision - one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201315000;_ylt=As4UjpDF1qLSfV0nv41ISg2s0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNrdXBzc3VqBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDA4MjUvMD g1OTkyMDEzMTUwMDAEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM4 BHBvcwM1BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbG lzdARzbGsDdGhlZ292ZXJubWVu)

Molon Labe
08-25-2010, 01:16 PM
This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway

wha? :confused:

PoliCon
08-25-2010, 01:22 PM
Plebes have no rights except those the progressives give us.

Wei Wu Wei
08-25-2010, 01:40 PM
Rights? ti's about stopping DRUGS people! DRUGS!!

they get you HIGH

i'll give you a right, i'll give you a left and i'll give you a kick to the fucking head. lol marijuana rights yeah right

djones520
08-25-2010, 01:45 PM
Rights? ti's about stopping DRUGS people! DRUGS!!

they get you HIGH

i'll give you a right, i'll give you a left and i'll give you a kick to the fucking head. lol marijuana rights yeah right

This isn't about Marijuana dumb ass. But I'm not suprised you'd pick up on that issue over the greater one. :rolleyes:

Man... days after Satanicus flees with his tail between his legs, you show up in full force to retake the stupid thrown.

PoliCon
08-25-2010, 01:54 PM
This isn't about Marijuana dumb ass. But I'm not suprised you'd pick up on that issue over the greater one. :rolleyes:

Man... days after Satanicus flees with his tail between his legs, you show up in full force to retake the stupid thrown.

Hazlnut showed back up out of no where as well. Funny that.

Wei Wu Wei
08-25-2010, 02:01 PM
This isn't about Marijuana dumb ass

Obviously. No one is for added government surveillance (at least not since the Patriot Act of course) but no one seriously speaks out against this type of activity because it's tied to Drug Enforcement, which is horribly run and which needs to be entirely overhauled because it's causing social, economic, criminal, and even terrorist activity now thanks to Mexican Drug Cartels who get most of their funding from the drug trade with the United States.

Jfor
08-25-2010, 03:03 PM
blah, blah, blah it's America's fault

Fixed it for you.

noonwitch
08-25-2010, 04:15 PM
This really doesn't surprise me, the war on drugs stripped us of a lot of our rights a long time ago.

Molon Labe
08-25-2010, 04:51 PM
This really doesn't surprise me, the war on drugs stripped us of a lot of our rights a long time ago.

You and me are probably in the minority on that one.

Gingersnap
08-25-2010, 08:05 PM
You and me are probably in the minority on that one.

Doubtful. I'd guess that half the board would be okay with dumping the War on Drugs and legalizing weed.

m00
08-25-2010, 08:41 PM
I'm surprised at the 9th. Usually with liberal courts you have to "put up" with bad rulings on some issues (entitlements) to get good rulings on other issues (privacy). Same deal with conservative courts.

This is really something where they ruled the wrong way, and I am incredibly saddened that a liberal court ruled this way.

Odysseus
08-25-2010, 09:37 PM
Rights? ti's about stopping DRUGS people! DRUGS!!

they get you HIGH

i'll give you a right, i'll give you a left and i'll give you a kick to the fucking head. lol marijuana rights yeah right
Clearly, you've been at the pipe yourself. You might want to grab a bag of Doritos and come down before you continue typing.

I'm surprised at the 9th. Usually with liberal courts you have to "put up" with bad rulings on some issues (entitlements) to get good rulings on other issues (privacy). Same deal with conservative courts.

This is really something where they ruled the wrong way, and I am incredibly saddened that a liberal court ruled this way.

Why are you surprised? Surveillance is always okay when liberals are in charge. It's only when conservatives are in charge that our rights are threatened.

PoliCon
08-25-2010, 09:54 PM
Doubtful. I'd guess that half the board would be okay with dumping the War on Drugs and legalizing weed.

Only if the dismantle the welfare state FIRST.

m00
08-26-2010, 12:32 AM
Why are you surprised? Surveillance is always okay when liberals are in charge.

C'mon. That's kind of a stretch. I think it's only a very recent phenomena, that liberals have honestly in my view taken the worst aspects of the Republican party.10 years ago this would have been unheard of. Liberals gave us the EFF, and the Innocence Project, and the ALCU. Those organizations are a lot of things, but one thing they aren't is pro-government-authority.

But there is a shift in the liberal wing towards totalitarianism, and I find it frustrating because in the last couple of years basically liberals have lost (what I consider) a somewhat redeeming quality. Maybe it was all an act until a Democrat became president, who knows.

Wei Wu Wei
08-26-2010, 01:28 AM
Doubtful. I'd guess that half the board would be okay with dumping the War on Drugs and legalizing weed.

The vast majority of liberals would as well, it's astonishing that it's not being taken seriously except for California. Even decriminalization would be better.

As it is, the majority of the billions of dollars that fund the Mexican Drug Cartels' border war comes from the American drug trade and more than half of that is from marijuana alone.

People are using this terrible violence on the border to play politics on both sides on the immigration issue but a change of policy would save the United States billions of tax dollars used on enforcement (which, some might argue, is indirect funding, or at least finance security, for the violent drug cartels) and potentially bring in billions more if it were legalized and taxed.

This is about liberty, about money, and about human lives caught up in the byproducts of a failed drug policy, and it seems most of the public agrees, yet nothing is done.

Bailey
08-26-2010, 07:49 AM
The vast majority of liberals would as well, it's astonishing that it's not being taken seriously except for California. Even decriminalization would be better.

As it is, the majority of the billions of dollars that fund the Mexican Drug Cartels' border war comes from the American drug trade and more than half of that is from marijuana alone.

People are using this terrible violence on the border to play politics on both sides on the immigration issue but a change of policy would save the United States billions of tax dollars used on enforcement (which, some might argue, is indirect funding, or at least finance security, for the violent drug cartels) and potentially bring in billions more if it were legalized and taxed.

This is about liberty, about money, and about human lives caught up in the byproducts of a failed drug policy, and it seems most of the public agrees, yet nothing is done.

I am all for legelized drugs, as long as the tax payers dont have to foot the bill for the drugs AND supporting any drugged out fool who cant fend for him/herself

Gingersnap
08-26-2010, 11:17 AM
This is about liberty, about money, and about human lives caught up in the byproducts of a failed drug policy, and it seems most of the public agrees, yet nothing is done.

Too many people in Washington and elsewhere have made a very good living off making weed illegal.

Odysseus
08-26-2010, 12:39 PM
C'mon. That's kind of a stretch. I think it's only a very recent phenomena, that liberals have honestly in my view taken the worst aspects of the Republican party.10 years ago this would have been unheard of. Liberals gave us the EFF, and the Innocence Project, and the ALCU. Those organizations are a lot of things, but one thing they aren't is pro-government-authority.

But there is a shift in the liberal wing towards totalitarianism, and I find it frustrating because in the last couple of years basically liberals have lost (what I consider) a somewhat redeeming quality. Maybe it was all an act until a Democrat became president, who knows.

Progressives (as opposed to the liberals of the same period, who are now conservatives) were always about totalitarianism. Woodrow Wilson attacked individual civil liberties through two major pieces of legislation, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which made criticism of the government an act of sedition, and Wilson created a private paramilitary group, the American Protective League (APL), which was officially approved by the Attorney General, who authorized the APL to carry on its letterhead the words "Organized with the Approval and Operating under the Direction of the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Investigation."[ They even carried badges which read, "American Protective League –Secret Service." Can you imagine the uproar if a Republican administration created it's own paramilitary league to ferret out "disloyalty"?

Their activities included raids and surveillance, As a result of its activities, over 10,000 aliens of German ancestry had been taken into government custody during World War I, all of whom were released after the Harding administration replaced Wilson's. Harding's AG referred to APL "intelligence" as "gossip, hearsay information, conclusions, and inferences" and stated that "information of this character could not be used without danger of doing serious wrong to individuals who were probably innocent."

The FDR white house generally concentrated on actual threats to the nation, but by the 1960s, liberals were perfectly willing to employ surveillance against the Civil Rights movement and even Republicans. Here's the Miami Herald on LBJ's hatchet man, Bill Moyers:


Bill Moyers' Journal, gay-bashing edition
Of all the second acts in American public life, none has amazed me more than that of Bill Moyers. He spent the first decade of his adult life as one of Lyndon Johnson's dirtiest henchmen. His work on Johnson's vicious 1964 presidential campaign is probably worth an entire book by itself: Moyers helped thwart the seating of an integrated delegation from Mississippi at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, and asked the FBI to investigate 15 members of the Senate staff of Johnson's opponent, Barry Goldwater. Other lowlights include Moyers giving the FBI the okay to spread dirty stories about Martin Luther King's sex life, and his ongoing role spinning fanciful tales about the war in Vietnam as Johnson's press secretary from 1965 to 1967.

Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2009/02/bill-moyers-homophobic-history.html#ixzz0xjMyuxo4

Progs/Liberals aren't in favor of civil liberties in general, they're in favor of liberties for themselves and restrictions on the rest of us. Always have been, always will be.

Wei Wu Wei
08-26-2010, 01:17 PM
Too many people in Washington and elsewhere have made a very good living off making weed illegal.

I agree, but given our usual different perspectives, who do you see as making enough money and wielding enough power to stop sensible legislation from being passed?

Another question, such a common sense issue that most people can get behind...why haven't any of the radio pundits (liberal or conservative) taken up this issue? Year after year radio heads talk it up about gays or muslims or immigrants but this is a real issue that people agree on, so why isn't the so called speakerbox of the working people ignoring it?

lacarnut
08-26-2010, 01:34 PM
I agree, but given our usual different perspectives, who do you see as making enough money and wielding enough power to stop sensible legislation from being passed?

Another question, such a common sense issue that most people can get behind...why haven't any of the radio pundits (liberal or conservative) taken up this issue? Year after year radio heads talk it up about gays or muslims or immigrants but this is a real issue that people agree on, so why isn't the so called speakerbox of the working people ignoring it?

Cause the majority of Americans are against legalizing drugs.

Odysseus
08-26-2010, 01:56 PM
Cause the majority of Americans are against legalizing drugs.

And, because legalization creates problems which most people don't want to deal with, on either side of the issue. For example, if it's legal to get high on any substance, whose job is it to deal with the fallout from those people who inevitably crash and burn? Do they get a taxpayer-funded rehab when they decide that they want to quit and can't? Do they get medical insurance that covers the side effects of their "hobby" (HIV, for one obvious example, from sharing needles, or the longterm effects of cocaine use on nasal cavities and cardio-vascular diseases, or even the weight gain from the munchies)? Will the legalization proponents object to over-indulgers losing their licenses to drive when they get behind the wheel of a car stoned, or when an employer decides that off-site habits can effect on-site performance? Does an airline, for example, have a right to impose drug restrictions on pilots? A construction company on it's heavy equipment operators? How about a hospital's medical personnel, especially surgical staff?

If we are going to exercise the right, people have to take responsibility. If they can't then the stuff stays illegal.

Molon Labe
08-26-2010, 02:28 PM
And, because legalization creates problems which most people don't want to deal with, on either side of the issue. For example, if it's legal to get high on any substance, whose job is it to deal with the fallout from those people who inevitably crash and burn? Do they get a taxpayer-funded rehab when they decide that they want to quit and can't? Do they get medical insurance that covers the side effects of their "hobby" (HIV, for one obvious example, from sharing needles, or the longterm effects of cocaine use on nasal cavities and cardio-vascular diseases, or even the weight gain from the munchies)? Will the legalization proponents object to over-indulgers losing their licenses to drive when they get behind the wheel of a car stoned, or when an employer decides that off-site habits can effect on-site performance? Does an airline, for example, have a right to impose drug restrictions on pilots? A construction company on it's heavy equipment operators? How about a hospital's medical personnel, especially surgical staff?

If we are going to exercise the right, people have to take responsibility. If they can't then the stuff stays illegal.

Everything goes back to property rights.

You don't have the right to to tell someone waht to put in their body.....but an employer can make conditions of contract of employment if you want to work, and finally, you can't force me to bankroll with my taxes someone who becomes a loser addict.

If those principles were followed for starters.......then you've got less of a problem.

Odysseus
08-26-2010, 03:39 PM
Everything goes back to property rights.

You don't have the right to to tell someone waht to put in their body.....but an employer can make conditions of contract of employment if you want to work, and finally, you can't force me to bankroll with my taxes someone who becomes a loser addict.

If those principles were followed for starters.......then you've got less of a problem.

Agreed. Unfortunately, many of those who favor legalization of drugs are also hostile to property rights, and will use the opportunity created by the excesses of those who over-imbibe as a means to expand state power. The ultimate example of this was Prohibition, which expanded the law-enforcement apparatus of the US government and made the newly-created IRS a law-enforcement tool.

Lager
08-26-2010, 04:10 PM
Doubtful. I'd guess that half the board would be okay with dumping the War on Drugs and legalizing weed.

I'd now prefer they just legalize weed instead of this "medical marijuana" farce here in Colorado. It's a joke. In my opinion, it's having the effect of enticing people who wouldn't have wanted to smoke it, to try it because they believe the BS about how it cures almost everything. :)

malloc
08-26-2010, 04:17 PM
Doubtful. I'd guess that half the board would be okay with dumping the War on Drugs and legalizing weed.

Probably pretty close. I'm on the legalize side of the argument as well.

Odysseus
08-26-2010, 04:27 PM
Probably pretty close. I'm on the legalize side of the argument as well.

I'm on the fence. I'd have no problem with legalization if it couldn't be used to create another wave of entitlements and people were held accountable for their actions under the influence. I guess what it comes down to is that you can't have legal drugs and liberals at the same time.

Jfor
08-26-2010, 04:55 PM
Everybody brings up prohibition as an argument for why drugs should be legal. Stop and think of what was passed before prohibition. It was the 16th amendment. The government had another revenue stream. Fast forward a few years. What was going on in the country when prohibition ended? Why, it was the Great Depression. The .gov needed another revenue stream so prohibition was gone.

Sonnabend
08-27-2010, 04:40 AM
Only person making the conection to drugs is Wei. Wassamatta, Wei, your drug connection get busted?:rolleyes:

RobJohnson
08-27-2010, 05:54 AM
I'm on the fence. I'd have no problem with legalization if it couldn't be used to create another wave of entitlements and people were held accountable for their actions under the influence. I guess what it comes down to is that you can't have legal drugs and liberals at the same time.


Very good point.

Weed would end up being a retail prescription drug paid for by the taxpayers and given to those that don't work.

Proud Infidel
08-27-2010, 07:48 AM
Of course, more Government control and monitoring of our lives is necessary, at least to Fed thugs,things like that GPS monitor would make dictators like Hitler and Stalin wet their pants with delight!!

Odysseus
08-27-2010, 09:50 AM
Very good point.

Weed would end up being a retail prescription drug paid for by the taxpayers and given to those that don't work.

I don't have a problem with prescriptions for drugs that are now illegal, if there is a legitimate medical use.. Cannabids, for example, are effective for appetite stimulation (for chemotherapy patients) and reduction of pressure for glaucoma patients, but they're no more subject to abuse than the codeine in cough syrup, so doctors ought to be able to prescribe it for those conditions. Also, if it could free up research into anti-cannabids, which are natural appetite suppressants, then there's a serious revenue stream to be realized. But that's not the same as saying, "take whatever drugs you want, turn your life upside down, crash your car, lose your job, leave your family homeless, and the taxpayer will pick up the tab."

m00
08-28-2010, 01:54 AM
And, because legalization creates problems which most people don't want to deal with, on either side of the issue. For example, if it's legal to get high on any substance, whose job is it to deal with the fallout from those people who inevitably crash and burn? Do they get a taxpayer-funded rehab when they decide that they want to quit and can't? Do they get medical insurance that covers the side effects of their "hobby" (HIV, for one obvious example, from sharing needles, or the longterm effects of cocaine use on nasal cavities and cardio-vascular diseases, or even the weight gain from the munchies)? Will the legalization proponents object to over-indulgers losing their licenses to drive when they get behind the wheel of a car stoned, or when an employer decides that off-site habits can effect on-site performance? Does an airline, for example, have a right to impose drug restrictions on pilots? A construction company on it's heavy equipment operators? How about a hospital's medical personnel, especially surgical staff?

If we are going to exercise the right, people have to take responsibility. If they can't then the stuff stays illegal.

We seem to do okay with drinking. I don't know why weed is any different.

RobJohnson
08-28-2010, 02:06 AM
I don't have a problem with prescriptions for drugs that are now illegal, if there is a legitimate medical use.. Cannabids, for example, are effective for appetite stimulation (for chemotherapy patients) and reduction of pressure for glaucoma patients, but they're no more subject to abuse than the codeine in cough syrup, so doctors ought to be able to prescribe it for those conditions. Also, if it could free up research into anti-cannabids, which are natural appetite suppressants, then there's a serious revenue stream to be realized. But that's not the same as saying, "take whatever drugs you want, turn your life upside down, crash your car, lose your job, leave your family homeless, and the taxpayer will pick up the tab."

They don't want the Rx Cannabids as they don't get you high. They want to smoke weed & have someone else pay for it.

PoliCon
08-28-2010, 10:43 AM
They don't want the Rx Cannabids as they don't get you high. They want to smoke weed & have someone else pay for it.

BINGO

Odysseus
08-28-2010, 02:51 PM
We seem to do okay with drinking. I don't know why weed is any different.
Except for when liberals get into the act. By classifying alcoholism as a disease, they avoid dealing with personal responsibility, with the result that things that ought to get you in hack are often treated as symptoms of illness. Think of all of the drunk drivers who have avoided jail by going to rehab, for example, or users of illegal drugs who have done the same thing when caught. There are legitimate psychological and medical aspects of addiction, but the crimes that addicts commit while under the influence are still crimes, and need to be treated as such. Liberals won't let us enforce laws that prevent people from causing harm to each other, either through malice or reckless disregard for safety. They treat perps as victims and victims as incidental, especially if the perps are specially protected constituencies and the victims aren't. Prime example: how many times had Teddy Kennedy driven drunk after Chappaquiddick? Or his son, for that matter? How much jail time has either had?

They don't want the Rx Cannabids as they don't get you high. They want to smoke weed & have someone else pay for it.
Exactly. Again, I don't care if somebody lights up, but if they get behind the wheel of a car, or the stick on a plane, then I have an issue with it. The military will continue to maintain our prohibition, because we play with too many dangerous things to allow someone to come into work with a residual buzz, and the longterm behavioral effects are disruptive to good order and discipline. Of course, we are already being told that allowing openly gay Soldiers to serve is not going to impact us (even though it was an openly gay Soldier who leaked 150,000 documents to Wikileaks after being dumped by his drag queen boyfriend), so I guess that allowing those openly gay troops to indulge in their recreational drugs of choice will soon be another lifestyle change that we will have to live with.