4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThat's not a narrow technical ground. Requiring involvement of the judiciary versus not requiring it is a huge distinction.
- defen 14y agoTo 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 agoSeems 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 agoWhich brings up the quesion... would it be legal if GPS tracking devices were embedded into government issued license plates?