Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Re: the embedded item: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? By extension, is there a business opportunity for bug-sweeping? Either a storefront or a properly equipped pickup truck with bright signage. (oh, yeah... I'm sure *that* would go over well with the Powers That Be) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFT SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... On the other hand, if it appears to be a lost item, you could be a good public citizen and take it to the police to see if anybody claims it... "GPS tracker" is an ambiguous description, though. GPS devices detect where they are, but what next? A device could record where it was, for later collection, or it could transmit its position to a listener. Tampering with existing recordings might have legal implications, but putting a transmitter-based system in your nearest garbage can or accidentally leaving it in a taxi or mailing it to Medellin all seem like reasonable activities. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Bill Stewart wrote: > At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent > >to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights > >to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? > > Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of > consumer electronics attached to your car, > do you have the right to play with it just as you would if > it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... Attaching it to another car would seem a suitable prank - someone who travels a lot, on an irregular path - a pizza delivery guy, or a real estate agent. Or perhaps a long distance truck. It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Peter Trei
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: >It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops >car would send a message Too easy. 5 points for adding to cop's personal car 10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car 20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car Not sure about point assignments for adding to cop's offspring's car adding to cop's offspring's teacher's car