6 ms·

The benefits of having an on-your-person radiolocation beacon are somewhat muted by the possibility of having the government use that same technology to undermi

by Nrsolis 15y ago

The benefits of having an on-your-person radiolocation beacon are somewhat muted by the possibility of having the government use that same technology to undermine your Constitutionally protected privacy. If there is anything that history can teach us, it's that law enforcement agencies will work hard to keep us from knowing that this is going on and they will fight to keep this tool because it makes it easier for them to do their job. Ask any cop and they will tell you that they often view our "rights" as a complete hinderance to their effectiveness. One man's "civil rights and due process" is another man's "got off on a technicality."

ChrisLTD 15y ago
I think it's damning that the police go out of their way to hide they are performing this kind of surveillance. It's as if they know it's wrong!
- mhurron 15y ago
  Wrong (morally) isn't the problem. It's that it's illegal, and they know that. Law enforcement operating above the law is not law enforcement.
  - Produce 15y ago
    Food for thought - all law enforcement operates above the law. They all intimidate, kidnap and assault and some of them even kill. A law enforcement officer who operates within the law wouldn't ever raise his fist.
- cdr 15y ago
  I doubt any officers think that it's wrong, but most are no doubt aware that this thing that is making their jobs easier is unpopular with the public and likely to be barred by courts when challenged. Best, then, to keep it as quiet as possible.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    This, absolutely. The police have a dim view of virtually every restriction of their powers. And that makes sense. The police know well that in the overwhelming majority of the situations they work in, society wants and needs the police to intervene. They're spending all day locking up bona fide criminals, and, in urban areas, worrying about getting shot. And all that means is that the police shouldn't be left to regulate themselves. And, they aren't.
Produce 15y ago
They say that power corrupts yet we wonder why our security forces are corrupt. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely yet we wonder why the highest leadership commits atrocities. They say that anarchy is disorder but they've never looked in a dictionary. They say it's the best system we have yet we try no other. They say it's for our good yet they're the rich ones. I say it's no good, yet I'm the one who's crazy.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  They say that anarchy is disorder but they've never looked in a dictionary. 1) b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority 2) b : absence of order : DISORDER -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
  - Produce 15y ago
    Ahem, I meant to write anarchism.
tptacek 15y ago
What "Constitutionally protected privacy" would that be? There's no enumerated right to privacy. There's a right to be free from "unreasonable" searches. But, if you actually read the key Supreme Court majority opinions establishing what "reasonable" means, you find that it concedes privacy in every case in which legitimate government interests are at stake.
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  So, a bit of a layman's guide to Constitutional Law: The Constitution specifies that there are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that are yours nonetheless. The SCOTUS has found that this includes "the right to privacy." Here is the first link from a 2 second Google search that might prove enlightening on the general scope fo the issues involved: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof... Here is another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut Generally speaking, if the SCOTUS says it's the law, you can consider their decision to be nearly equivalent to a general incorporation into the Consitution since all courts below it are essentially BOUND to follow that decision if it's relevant. If SCOTUS says it's illegal, it's illegal. And I would disagree with your characterization of what "key Supreme Court majority opinions" say. The reasonableness test is one that gets bandied about quite a bit. You're going to have to cite specific cases if you're going to make that claim. Here is one that supports mine: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf Ctrl-F "reasonable expectation of privacy"
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The syllabus of this opinion, which I cited upthread, says that the court didn't have to consider "reasonable expectation of privacy" (like I said, Scalia's majority opinion turns on the fact that you can't tamper with someone's person effects, including their car, and claim not to be encumbered by the 4th Amendment). The opinion goes on to repeatedly affirm that drivers on public roads do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the Constitutionality of searches without warrants in exigent circumstances or in situations where searches have limited scope and support a legitimate interest of the state, how about GM Leasing v United States. Also, Katz is a case that comes up a lot in SCOTUS opinions about "reasonable" search (we have Katz to thank for the fact that wiretaps require warrants). From the majority opinion: What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416594 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416... Finally, Griswold is the case everyone cites with regards to a specific right to privacy. But if you look at cases that follow it, like Lawrence v. Texas, we again see words like "legitimate state interest" (Ctr-F for it). My point here isn't that there's no Constitutional protection of privacy. I'm just saying that there's no enumerated right to privacy, and implying that privacy protections under the Constitutions are lesser protections compared to freedom of speech and religion, or the freedom to bear arms. Of the possible freedoms a Constitution could explicitly grant, "privacy" seems like one of the least tenable, given how often privacy comes into tension with law enforcement.

by Nrsolis 15y ago

ChrisLTD 15y ago

I think it's damning that the police go out of their way to hide they are performing this kind of surveillance. It's as if they know it's wrong!

mhurron 15y ago
Wrong (morally) isn't the problem. It's that it's illegal, and they know that. Law enforcement operating above the law is not law enforcement.
- Produce 15y ago
  Food for thought - all law enforcement operates above the law. They all intimidate, kidnap and assault and some of them even kill. A law enforcement officer who operates within the law wouldn't ever raise his fist.
cdr 15y ago
I doubt any officers think that it's wrong, but most are no doubt aware that this thing that is making their jobs easier is unpopular with the public and likely to be barred by courts when challenged. Best, then, to keep it as quiet as possible.
- tptacek 15y ago
  This, absolutely. The police have a dim view of virtually every restriction of their powers. And that makes sense. The police know well that in the overwhelming majority of the situations they work in, society wants and needs the police to intervene. They're spending all day locking up bona fide criminals, and, in urban areas, worrying about getting shot. And all that means is that the police shouldn't be left to regulate themselves. And, they aren't.

Produce 15y ago

They say that power corrupts yet we wonder why our security forces are corrupt. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely yet we wonder why the highest leadership commits atrocities. They say that anarchy is disorder but they've never looked in a dictionary. They say it's the best system we have yet we try no other. They say it's for our good yet they're the rich ones. I say it's no good, yet I'm the one who's crazy.

sliverstorm 15y ago
They say that anarchy is disorder but they've never looked in a dictionary. 1) b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority 2) b : absence of order : DISORDER -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
- Produce 15y ago
  Ahem, I meant to write anarchism.

tptacek 15y ago

What "Constitutionally protected privacy" would that be? There's no enumerated right to privacy. There's a right to be free from "unreasonable" searches. But, if you actually read the key Supreme Court majority opinions establishing what "reasonable" means, you find that it concedes privacy in every case in which legitimate government interests are at stake.

Nrsolis 15y ago
So, a bit of a layman's guide to Constitutional Law: The Constitution specifies that there are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that are yours nonetheless. The SCOTUS has found that this includes "the right to privacy." Here is the first link from a 2 second Google search that might prove enlightening on the general scope fo the issues involved: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof... Here is another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut Generally speaking, if the SCOTUS says it's the law, you can consider their decision to be nearly equivalent to a general incorporation into the Consitution since all courts below it are essentially BOUND to follow that decision if it's relevant. If SCOTUS says it's illegal, it's illegal. And I would disagree with your characterization of what "key Supreme Court majority opinions" say. The reasonableness test is one that gets bandied about quite a bit. You're going to have to cite specific cases if you're going to make that claim. Here is one that supports mine: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf Ctrl-F "reasonable expectation of privacy"
- tptacek 15y ago
  The syllabus of this opinion, which I cited upthread, says that the court didn't have to consider "reasonable expectation of privacy" (like I said, Scalia's majority opinion turns on the fact that you can't tamper with someone's person effects, including their car, and claim not to be encumbered by the 4th Amendment). The opinion goes on to repeatedly affirm that drivers on public roads do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the Constitutionality of searches without warrants in exigent circumstances or in situations where searches have limited scope and support a legitimate interest of the state, how about GM Leasing v United States. Also, Katz is a case that comes up a lot in SCOTUS opinions about "reasonable" search (we have Katz to thank for the fact that wiretaps require warrants). From the majority opinion: What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416594 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416... Finally, Griswold is the case everyone cites with regards to a specific right to privacy. But if you look at cases that follow it, like Lawrence v. Texas, we again see words like "legitimate state interest" (Ctr-F for it). My point here isn't that there's no Constitutional protection of privacy. I'm just saying that there's no enumerated right to privacy, and implying that privacy protections under the Constitutions are lesser protections compared to freedom of speech and religion, or the freedom to bear arms. Of the possible freedoms a Constitution could explicitly grant, "privacy" seems like one of the least tenable, given how often privacy comes into tension with law enforcement.