4 ms·

I listened to the NPR story when it ran. The FBI explained that they use these devices to establish probable cause, which they'd then use (ideally) to get a war

I listened to the NPR story when it ran. The FBI explained that they use these devices to establish probable cause, which they'd then use (ideally) to get a warrant for more invasive processes. But as pointed out, if >90% of your cases already can meet that threshold according to a (theoretically) independent judiciary, then you don't really have a problem. Perhaps the other 10% reflected the abuses we want to prevent, or perhaps just sloppy police work. Either way, the warrant requirement is a security control against abusive law enforcement. After all, by their own reasoning, if they've done nothing wrong, then they've nothing to hide (from a judge), right? Interestingly, the story concluded by noting that the FBI would probably just depend more often on cell phone tracking records, which companies will often provide in response to a prosecutorial subpoena even without a judge's signature.

nextparadigms 15y ago
But isn't that sort of illegal, too? Invading someone's property to find something incriminatory, and then to accuse them of what you found? If not, then they could just randomly visit anyone's home and try to look for pirated software or music.
- kylemaxwell 15y ago
  Their previous (and now illegal) idea was to establish a suspect's whereabouts at a given time and thus to show that he was visiting places where a crime likely was committed. Now that doesn't work unless they assign agents to follow him, for precisely the reason you specify: it's an illegal search to enter their property (automobile) and attach the GPS tracking device. Cell phone records, while controversial, are generally business records of the wireless telco and thus don't always enjoy the same protection. Personally, I'd like to see them get similar requirements for disclosure to law enforcement, but in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    Isn't that like saying that your car's movements records of its movements are business records of the manufacturer, or of OnStar, and subject to subpoena?
    - kylemaxwell 15y ago
      Yeah, the question of OnStar and similar services is still up for debate. I have a bad feeling they'll be treated like cell phone records.
    - newman314 15y ago
      OnStar or undocumented GSM systems in Tesla... See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3619088 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3619088 and http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-tesla-motors-devastating-design http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te... (under Prevention Measures). "After the first 500 Roadsters, Tesla added a remote monitoring system to the vehicles, connecting through AT&T’s GSM-based cellular network. Tesla uses this system to monitor various vehicle metrics including the battery charge levels, as long as the vehicle has the GSM connection activated4 and is within range of AT&T’s network. According to the Tesla service manager, Tesla has used this information on multiple occasions to proactively telephone customers to warn them when their Roadster’s battery was dangerously low. In at least one case, Tesla went even further. The Tesla service manager admitted that, unable to contact an owner by phone, Tesla remotely activated a dying vehicle’s GPS to determine its location and then dispatched Tesla staff to go there. It is not clear if Tesla had obtained this owner’s consent to allow this tracking5, or if the owner is even aware that his vehicle had been tracked. Further, the service manager acknowledged that this use of tracking was not something they generally tell customers about. Going to these lengths could be seen as customer service, but it would also seem to fit with an internal awareness at Tesla of the gravity of the “bricking” problem, and the potentially disastrous public relations and sales fallout that could result from it becoming more broadly known."
newman314 15y ago
Minority Report used "pre-cogs" to establish probable cause. Just saying that the logic presented by said agencies are dubious at best, flawed at a minimum.

nextparadigms 15y ago

But isn't that sort of illegal, too? Invading someone's property to find something incriminatory, and then to accuse them of what you found? If not, then they could just randomly visit anyone's home and try to look for pirated software or music.

kylemaxwell 15y ago
Their previous (and now illegal) idea was to establish a suspect's whereabouts at a given time and thus to show that he was visiting places where a crime likely was committed. Now that doesn't work unless they assign agents to follow him, for precisely the reason you specify: it's an illegal search to enter their property (automobile) and attach the GPS tracking device. Cell phone records, while controversial, are generally business records of the wireless telco and thus don't always enjoy the same protection. Personally, I'd like to see them get similar requirements for disclosure to law enforcement, but in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Isn't that like saying that your car's movements records of its movements are business records of the manufacturer, or of OnStar, and subject to subpoena?
  - kylemaxwell 15y ago
    Yeah, the question of OnStar and similar services is still up for debate. I have a bad feeling they'll be treated like cell phone records.
  - newman314 15y ago
    OnStar or undocumented GSM systems in Tesla... See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3619088 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3619088 and http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-tesla-motors-devastating-design http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te... (under Prevention Measures). "After the first 500 Roadsters, Tesla added a remote monitoring system to the vehicles, connecting through AT&T’s GSM-based cellular network. Tesla uses this system to monitor various vehicle metrics including the battery charge levels, as long as the vehicle has the GSM connection activated4 and is within range of AT&T’s network. According to the Tesla service manager, Tesla has used this information on multiple occasions to proactively telephone customers to warn them when their Roadster’s battery was dangerously low. In at least one case, Tesla went even further. The Tesla service manager admitted that, unable to contact an owner by phone, Tesla remotely activated a dying vehicle’s GPS to determine its location and then dispatched Tesla staff to go there. It is not clear if Tesla had obtained this owner’s consent to allow this tracking5, or if the owner is even aware that his vehicle had been tracked. Further, the service manager acknowledged that this use of tracking was not something they generally tell customers about. Going to these lengths could be seen as customer service, but it would also seem to fit with an internal awareness at Tesla of the gravity of the “bricking” problem, and the potentially disastrous public relations and sales fallout that could result from it becoming more broadly known."

newman314 15y ago

Minority Report used "pre-cogs" to establish probable cause. Just saying that the logic presented by said agencies are dubious at best, flawed at a minimum.