4 ms·

Should they be able to plant a gps tracker on your clothing without a warrant? After all, they could get the same information by just following you. This is j

Should they be able to plant a gps tracker on your clothing without a warrant? After all, they could get the same information by just following you. This is just easier. Why would it be any different than your car? It's not actually on your person, per se, it's on your clothing, which is different. Sure, the resolution of the determined movement is higher, but they could have an agent tail you to the same effect if you left your car. The line we draw in the sand is somewhat arbitrary, but it has to be there. I'm generally for putting the line further up the slippery slope.

tptacek 15y ago
No, attaching anything to my clothing is extraordinarily intrusive, and the police do not in fact have the ability to monitor my every movement, unlike with my vehicle, where virtually all lawful movement is already subject to monitoring. I don't think this is an arbitrary or subtle difference; I think it's night and day. I specifically think that warrantless monitoring of vehicles is reasonable.
- djb_hackernews 15y ago
  Why do you get to say attaching anything to clothing is extraordinarily intrusive? What if I believe attaching anything to my vehicle is extraordinarily intrusive?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Easy: because virtually all operation of a motor vehicle occurs in an environment where you can have no expectation of privacy (for instance, I don't need to obtain a release to publish to Instagram a photo of a friend standing by a road with passing cars on it). The same is not true of clothing.
    - learc83 15y ago
      What about a bicycle that can be carried indoors?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Nobody is proposing that the FBI GPS tag bikes, dude.
        learc83 15y ago
        Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, Farm equipment?
- gojomo 15y ago
  On which side of your line do roller-skates fall? :)
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Watching the vehicle is fine. Altering or attaching something to it is a violation of personal property rights. How do you feel about private citizens attaching GPS devices to vehicles without permission? After all, private citizens can also just watch cars...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Are license plates and city stickers a violation of personal property rights?
    - jrockway 15y ago
      You need those things to drive on the city's property. If you want to drive your vehicle around on the freeway in Nebraska, you don't need Chicago stickers. If you want to disassemble your vehicle and eat it as part of a circus show, you don't need license plates. So no.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        If you're not driving your vehicle (for instance, if its a museum piece) the police have no business putting a transponder on it. On the other hand, if you drive your Illinois car around on the freeway in Nebraska with expired Illinois plates, you will be pulled over, and the reason I know that is guess. Help me understand why a transponder violated the sanctity of your car, but the valid state license plate, issued by the state and required on every vehicle, so as to allow the police to identify your car from a distance despite any individual interest in privacy doesn't. You can't even see the transponders.
        dpatru 15y ago
        > Help me understand why a transponder violated the sanctity of your car, but the valid state license plate, issued by the state and required on every vehicle, so as to allow the police to identify your car from a distance despite any individual interest in privacy doesn't. You can't even see the transponders. A sticker or plate is placed on your car with your permission and knowledge. And when you accept it, you know that you are being treated just like all the other drivers. A transponder is placed on your car (property) without your permission and without your knowledge. You are singled out for special treatment (tracking) by the police. In the US, except for certain exceptions, searches require a warrant issued by a judge and probable cause. A search is an examination of another's property to look for evidences of a crime. The biggest exception to the warrant requirement is the "plain view" exception. Police do not need a warrant if evidence of a crime can be seen in "plain view" without trespassing or employing special means to search. So if you've failed to register your car, police can see this from plain view. They are not required to avert their eyes to not see the missing or expired tags. They don't need special equipment to see the tags. So they don't need a warrant to "search" for failure to register. On the other hand, placing a tracking device and monitoring it is not within the plain view exception. Police must do considerably more than fail to avert their eyes in order to use the tracking device. They must have targeted a particular car for a search. They must place a transponder on the suspect's property without the suspect's permission (this is a trespass by the way). They must use special equipment to track the transponder. It is not visible or detectable with the unaided senses. The difference between tracking a suspect with the naked eye versus using a transponder is like the difference between questioning a suspect and observing his reactions and body language versus giving the suspect a lie detection test. Police are not required to get a warrant to pay attention to how a suspect reacts to questions. But as soon as they start monitoring him with special equipment, then they have to get a warrant (or get his permission.) Plain view is an exception to the warrant requirement, not the other way around. The rule is that police cannot search without a warrant. Plain view is an exception because it makes little sense to require police to ignore obvious signs of crime just because they don't have a warrant. After all, part of their job is investigation. But they have to do their investigation respectful of citizen's rights unless they get special, limited permission from a neutral judge. (Edited to add the last paragraph.)

tptacek 15y ago

No, attaching anything to my clothing is extraordinarily intrusive, and the police do not in fact have the ability to monitor my every movement, unlike with my vehicle, where virtually all lawful movement is already subject to monitoring. I don't think this is an arbitrary or subtle difference; I think it's night and day. I specifically think that warrantless monitoring of vehicles is reasonable.

djb_hackernews 15y ago
Why do you get to say attaching anything to clothing is extraordinarily intrusive? What if I believe attaching anything to my vehicle is extraordinarily intrusive?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Easy: because virtually all operation of a motor vehicle occurs in an environment where you can have no expectation of privacy (for instance, I don't need to obtain a release to publish to Instagram a photo of a friend standing by a road with passing cars on it). The same is not true of clothing.
  - learc83 15y ago
    What about a bicycle that can be carried indoors?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Nobody is proposing that the FBI GPS tag bikes, dude.
      - learc83 15y ago
        Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, Farm equipment?
gojomo 15y ago
On which side of your line do roller-skates fall? :)
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Watching the vehicle is fine. Altering or attaching something to it is a violation of personal property rights. How do you feel about private citizens attaching GPS devices to vehicles without permission? After all, private citizens can also just watch cars...
- tptacek 15y ago
  Are license plates and city stickers a violation of personal property rights?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    You need those things to drive on the city's property. If you want to drive your vehicle around on the freeway in Nebraska, you don't need Chicago stickers. If you want to disassemble your vehicle and eat it as part of a circus show, you don't need license plates. So no.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      If you're not driving your vehicle (for instance, if its a museum piece) the police have no business putting a transponder on it. On the other hand, if you drive your Illinois car around on the freeway in Nebraska with expired Illinois plates, you will be pulled over, and the reason I know that is guess. Help me understand why a transponder violated the sanctity of your car, but the valid state license plate, issued by the state and required on every vehicle, so as to allow the police to identify your car from a distance despite any individual interest in privacy doesn't. You can't even see the transponders.
      - dpatru 15y ago
        > Help me understand why a transponder violated the sanctity of your car, but the valid state license plate, issued by the state and required on every vehicle, so as to allow the police to identify your car from a distance despite any individual interest in privacy doesn't. You can't even see the transponders. A sticker or plate is placed on your car with your permission and knowledge. And when you accept it, you know that you are being treated just like all the other drivers. A transponder is placed on your car (property) without your permission and without your knowledge. You are singled out for special treatment (tracking) by the police. In the US, except for certain exceptions, searches require a warrant issued by a judge and probable cause. A search is an examination of another's property to look for evidences of a crime. The biggest exception to the warrant requirement is the "plain view" exception. Police do not need a warrant if evidence of a crime can be seen in "plain view" without trespassing or employing special means to search. So if you've failed to register your car, police can see this from plain view. They are not required to avert their eyes to not see the missing or expired tags. They don't need special equipment to see the tags. So they don't need a warrant to "search" for failure to register. On the other hand, placing a tracking device and monitoring it is not within the plain view exception. Police must do considerably more than fail to avert their eyes in order to use the tracking device. They must have targeted a particular car for a search. They must place a transponder on the suspect's property without the suspect's permission (this is a trespass by the way). They must use special equipment to track the transponder. It is not visible or detectable with the unaided senses. The difference between tracking a suspect with the naked eye versus using a transponder is like the difference between questioning a suspect and observing his reactions and body language versus giving the suspect a lie detection test. Police are not required to get a warrant to pay attention to how a suspect reacts to questions. But as soon as they start monitoring him with special equipment, then they have to get a warrant (or get his permission.) Plain view is an exception to the warrant requirement, not the other way around. The rule is that police cannot search without a warrant. Plain view is an exception because it makes little sense to require police to ignore obvious signs of crime just because they don't have a warrant. After all, part of their job is investigation. But they have to do their investigation respectful of citizen's rights unless they get special, limited permission from a neutral judge. (Edited to add the last paragraph.)