3 ms·

Assume a GPS is already installed on every car and in every cell phone - this will be the case in about, oh say, right now. "allow them to designate specific v

Assume a GPS is already installed on every car and in every cell phone - this will be the case in about, oh say, right now. "allow them to designate specific vehicles in the course of actual investigations" What process do you think they should use to designate a vehicle and access the records? I would think passing the request by a judge and swearing to him that they think there is a reason to track this car is a good way to do it.

tptacek 15y ago
Again: I do not think the police should have warrantless access to telemetry devices owned by the motorist. I do not care what process is used to determine what cars an actual police officer will walk up to and attach a device to, just like I do not care what process is used to determine which cars an actual police officer will tail in an unmarked car. I care that some process exists, but I don't think it needs to be court ordered. I think you should consider carefully whether mechanically involving the courts in decisions about collecting information in plain sight of police officers is in your best interests. Search warrants are already often a formality granted in the overwhelming majority of requests. A good way to help condition the court system to say "yes" to every request is to flood them with requests that in virtually every single instance will be be reasonable.
- asmithmd1 15y ago
  My point is that all cars and cell phones already have GPS trackers installed. Since there is no need to place a device on a car or person to track them, the police just have to access the already existing records. If it is OK to place a device on a car without a warrant, wouldn't be OK to access tracking records without a warrant?
  - chc 15y ago
    I agree with tptacek on this one: Even if they have the same effect, they're fundamentally different things. The difference is that by placing a tracker, you really are just tailing them with an electronic device of your own. But co-opting their phone or forcing a company to divulge records without a court order is essentially a violation of their property rights and protection from unreasonable searches.
- roc 15y ago
  I can appreciate your position that if cops have to flood the courts, eyes will glaze over and careful consideration will go out the window. But what use is an unclogged judicial review process to protect our fourth amendment rights if the police already have a green light to conduct unlimited surveillance? More specifically: what good is judicial oversight when selective reporting of telemetry data can and will inevitably show you crossing paths with persons and locations noted for criminal activity? Do you really expect the court is going to be familiar with sets of coordinates and realize that they are mere stops at intersections along your commute to work? Or popular shops and restaurants? Will they have any clue that the one time you were at the intersection marked in the warrant filing, that it was because there was an accident along your normal commute and you detoured a couple blocks? 24x7 telemetry data is effectively automatic-probable-cause. Cherry-picking that data is the digital equivalent to two cops playing the "Hey, Bob, do you smell marijuana?" game. You will have crossed paths with criminals. You will have stopped, shopped, worked, ate or drank in proximity to criminals. You will have associated with people who could be argued to be intermediaries for criminals. Give me a month's worth of 24x7 telemetry data and I'll give you an arguable criminal narrative.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The police do not need probable cause to surveil a vehicle driving on public streets. If they did, I would understand the argument that warrantless telemetry was scary. They'd be using technology to bypass a check/balance that already exists. But they don't. The police can follow you for no reason. They can follow you because they don't like the look of your haircut. I do not think the police should have 24x7 access to telemetry from all vehicles. I think the process needs to start with, "Subject K of this investigation is known to drive this late motel Honda Civic, and we are now commencing GPS surveillance". I do worry about the consequences of LEOs cherry-picking from a constant stream of everyone's telemetry data, so that for instance you might get harassed if you lived in nice neighborhood X and drove into bad neighborhood Y for a few minutes, and, whoops, now there's probable cause that you just went and bought drugs. That kind of stuff? Bad! A good reason why we shouldn't be OK with them getting all the OnStar data or whatnot. But that's simply not what we're talking about here. As long as an LEO has to walk up to a car deliberately and attach a device (which again let's be honest probably costs way too much for them to throw away), I am fine with it.

tptacek 15y ago

Again: I do not think the police should have warrantless access to telemetry devices owned by the motorist. I do not care what process is used to determine what cars an actual police officer will walk up to and attach a device to, just like I do not care what process is used to determine which cars an actual police officer will tail in an unmarked car. I care that some process exists, but I don't think it needs to be court ordered. I think you should consider carefully whether mechanically involving the courts in decisions about collecting information in plain sight of police officers is in your best interests. Search warrants are already often a formality granted in the overwhelming majority of requests. A good way to help condition the court system to say "yes" to every request is to flood them with requests that in virtually every single instance will be be reasonable.

asmithmd1 15y ago
My point is that all cars and cell phones already have GPS trackers installed. Since there is no need to place a device on a car or person to track them, the police just have to access the already existing records. If it is OK to place a device on a car without a warrant, wouldn't be OK to access tracking records without a warrant?
- chc 15y ago
  I agree with tptacek on this one: Even if they have the same effect, they're fundamentally different things. The difference is that by placing a tracker, you really are just tailing them with an electronic device of your own. But co-opting their phone or forcing a company to divulge records without a court order is essentially a violation of their property rights and protection from unreasonable searches.
roc 15y ago
I can appreciate your position that if cops have to flood the courts, eyes will glaze over and careful consideration will go out the window. But what use is an unclogged judicial review process to protect our fourth amendment rights if the police already have a green light to conduct unlimited surveillance? More specifically: what good is judicial oversight when selective reporting of telemetry data can and will inevitably show you crossing paths with persons and locations noted for criminal activity? Do you really expect the court is going to be familiar with sets of coordinates and realize that they are mere stops at intersections along your commute to work? Or popular shops and restaurants? Will they have any clue that the one time you were at the intersection marked in the warrant filing, that it was because there was an accident along your normal commute and you detoured a couple blocks? 24x7 telemetry data is effectively automatic-probable-cause. Cherry-picking that data is the digital equivalent to two cops playing the "Hey, Bob, do you smell marijuana?" game. You will have crossed paths with criminals. You will have stopped, shopped, worked, ate or drank in proximity to criminals. You will have associated with people who could be argued to be intermediaries for criminals. Give me a month's worth of 24x7 telemetry data and I'll give you an arguable criminal narrative.
- tptacek 15y ago
  The police do not need probable cause to surveil a vehicle driving on public streets. If they did, I would understand the argument that warrantless telemetry was scary. They'd be using technology to bypass a check/balance that already exists. But they don't. The police can follow you for no reason. They can follow you because they don't like the look of your haircut. I do not think the police should have 24x7 access to telemetry from all vehicles. I think the process needs to start with, "Subject K of this investigation is known to drive this late motel Honda Civic, and we are now commencing GPS surveillance". I do worry about the consequences of LEOs cherry-picking from a constant stream of everyone's telemetry data, so that for instance you might get harassed if you lived in nice neighborhood X and drove into bad neighborhood Y for a few minutes, and, whoops, now there's probable cause that you just went and bought drugs. That kind of stuff? Bad! A good reason why we shouldn't be OK with them getting all the OnStar data or whatnot. But that's simply not what we're talking about here. As long as an LEO has to walk up to a car deliberately and attach a device (which again let's be honest probably costs way too much for them to throw away), I am fine with it.