3 ms·

Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. I'd have to disagree. We've seen GPS tracking thrown out and other curbs on inva

by Zimahl 14y ago

Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. I'd have to disagree. We've seen GPS tracking thrown out and other curbs on invasions of privacy. This court seems very interested in broadly defining privacy.

rosser 14y ago
Concur. As little as I'd have expected to be able to say this when some of the more recent sitting justices were appointed, I think this may be one of the best SCOTUS in recent memory to have such a case appear before them.
defen 14y ago
IANAL but IIRC the GPS tracking was thrown out on narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the cops can't trespass upon your vehicle to install the tracker. They didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with the tracking itself. In other words, it would be just as illegal for the cops to surreptitiously attach an inert brick to your car without a warrant.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That's not a narrow technical ground. Requiring involvement of the judiciary versus not requiring it is a huge distinction.
  - defen 14y ago
    To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's already ok for the cops to tail you without a warrant. But automated vehicle-tracking via drones without a warrant (for example) is still up in the air. No pun intended. It wasn't really a ruling in favor of (or against) privacy.
    - eurleif 14y ago
      Seems to me like drones should be treated the same as thermal imaging cameras, which the Supreme Court ruled required a warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States) because they're not in use by the general public, and thus there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it was a 5-4 decision, and I guess drones might come into use by the general public, so who knows.
- chrisbolt 14y ago
  Which brings up the quesion... would it be legal if GPS tracking devices were embedded into government issued license plates?

by Zimahl 14y ago

rosser 14y ago

Concur. As little as I'd have expected to be able to say this when some of the more recent sitting justices were appointed, I think this may be one of the best SCOTUS in recent memory to have such a case appear before them.

defen 14y ago

IANAL but IIRC the GPS tracking was thrown out on narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the cops can't trespass upon your vehicle to install the tracker. They didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with the tracking itself. In other words, it would be just as illegal for the cops to surreptitiously attach an inert brick to your car without a warrant.

rayiner 14y ago
That's not a narrow technical ground. Requiring involvement of the judiciary versus not requiring it is a huge distinction.
- defen 14y ago
  To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's already ok for the cops to tail you without a warrant. But automated vehicle-tracking via drones without a warrant (for example) is still up in the air. No pun intended. It wasn't really a ruling in favor of (or against) privacy.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    Seems to me like drones should be treated the same as thermal imaging cameras, which the Supreme Court ruled required a warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States) because they're not in use by the general public, and thus there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it was a 5-4 decision, and I guess drones might come into use by the general public, so who knows.
chrisbolt 14y ago
Which brings up the quesion... would it be legal if GPS tracking devices were embedded into government issued license plates?