It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:04 AM
No big surprise! The US census currently GPS marks the location of every american's front door. A bit of a creepy thought, not that being tracked is any worse, but heres an old tip if your worried about being tracked (no idea if it works on modern trackers though). All you have to do is have a compass mounted on your dash board or somewhere in your car and note the direction that it points after you park. There is something about some trackers that i once saw in a spy documentary on the history channel or something that creates a strong magnetic field. If you return to your car and the direction of the compass has changed you have either missed the earth's magnetic pole reversal or someone stuck a tracker under your rear bumper. I have also seen "bug detectors" sold commercially in catalogs like "Edmund Scientific" which are extremely well priced as far as i recall and are probably more accurate than a compass-dashboard-trick-thing.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Actually, if you really think DEEEEPLY into this situation, it makes perfect sense and is actually a rather good idea.

The government is here to keep us safe from TERRORISTS. If they need data on my innocent activities to help them catch terrorists, then so be it. They will surely only use this information to keep PUBLIC ORDER. Public order will ensure safety, as "strange" or "odd" DEVIATIONS FROM THE NORM would surely tip them off to TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

People need to wake up and realize that when you are in public view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. And, this is also a nice way the government makes *average* and even *below average* folks feel important...

...Think about it like having PAPARZZI following you around everywhere. Let's face it, Hollywood celebrities enjoy no public privacy. Why should we? So, not only is this an ego boost, but it also KEEPS US SAFE.

Of course, and this is not a suggestion, JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT... if a person were to *electrify* the body of their car... anyone touching it might get a little surprise. LOL --This is a joke. Do NOT electrify your cars. Many birds, squirrels, kids and clandestine government agents just might get a little shock. Of course, this thought experiment involves NON LETHAL levels of electricity. Just the amount perhaps involved in a hand-buzzer or a psychological experiment "buzz" when you do something wrong.

Just kidding, overall, too. Seriously, personally, I have nothing to hide, so if they want to waste billions of dollars on this ridiculous program, they will essentially get a bunch of USELESS data that costs too much to maintain (like when you sell your car or trade it in for a new one). The logistics of this operation far outweigh anything they might gain from employing it. In fact, the "fact" that "they" are doing this is most likely a hoax. I just can't see them spending BILLIONS on tagging vehicles they know will eventually be sold, stolen, traded-in, wrecked, and/or junked. How do you differentiate between a vehicle sold to someone else after it's been tagged? THEY DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER. THEY NEVER WILL. There are too many people to really consider this is an active program.

Just some thoughts.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

Dial back on the paranoia. I am further up on the list, being ex federal ,than you. The internet monitoring system is a compiler of keywords. So unless you are talking about acting on bad ideas then you get written off. No white vans are following you, no black sedans....good lord.I am ex fed AND anti-gov't. So stop with the anxiety attacks. GPS transmitters were introduced about 8 years or so ago to the civilian police market. After the Patriot act allowed triangulation, Onstar tracking and other means these things don't happen unless your PD are low-rent. They don't look or follow ANYONE on this site unless you have decided to make threats and have made posts here or elsewhere to follow through. Good GOD. The gov't maybe pretty sharp with computer programming but are far from all seeing.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:24 AM
you guys know gps trackers are incredibly cheap right? what stops anyone from doing it to anyone? nothing.

For a mere 150 you can by a gps locator that uses a magnetic gps attached to the car and a a "keyfob" with a directional and distance locator display that fits on your keychain.

If you're more ambitious than for a mere 300 you can get the same thing but with the ability of the gps to store data and plot it on a map like google earth.

All in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog.

Also are alarm clocks with mini motion sensing cameras that can record video.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:27 AM
If you think this is new you're wrong. Any vehicle with onstar can be tracked regardless of if you pay for the service or not. just like a home alarm, the company gets the info they just only act if you pay the monthly bill.

Also I will point out this, you all know the government plans on thios as part of the carbon tax right? Taxing you buy the mile at a rate specific to the precinct driven in all added up and piled on top of your income tax.


posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Snarf
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

It really is just as simple as that.

They're not interested in a joe schmoe...they're interested in the evil bastard PRETENDING to be Joe Schmoe.

Tell that to Stacey Peterson. She was the SECOND wife of a Chicago cop who went missing. The cop, Drew Peterson, is currently facing murder charges of his first wife.

You assume every cop or FBI is honest - not a true assumption. And even the honest ones can get so caught up in emotions, they might not assess the situation properly.

What's the big deal about getting a warrant? If there is good reason, why not send the extra time and have a judge sign the papers? More than likely they want to be able to put the device on cars based on things like hunches and racial profiling - things which would not be good enough for a judge.

Plus, I don't think people realize the harm of having your privacy invaded. If someone wants to go to a gay club, see a doctor who specializes in "certain" medical problems, go to thrift stores or anything else which is private - they should be able to do so without sharing this info with their local police. And don't tell me police don't gossip or make fun of people because they do.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:51 AM
Go watch "Enemy of the State" then you will know why free GPS is bad.

Notice how easy to get info about the movie ? As easy to get your detail.
Put your name there and see how easy to get it...

wait, you not in the operating center ?, too bad, just tell me your name, I might lookup up where are your last address...and linked friends, your life pretty much like FB and Wikipedia - documented.


Samples of your "free maintenance kits"
Its small portable and use only 4 AA batteries (up to 90 days tracking your spouse!)

[edit on 26-8-2010 by RainCloud]

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:02 AM
Jam it:

Military: 1227.6 MHz
Civilian L1: 1575.42 MHz
Civilian L2: 1227.6 MHz
Nuclear burst detection L3: 1381.05 MHz

Telemetry on 2227.5 MHz.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:20 AM
lol to the ones telling people to buy mirrors to look under your car...

You'll never find them

Now just think what technology organizations that would want to put a gps tracking device on your car would have access to...

Not to mention, they could all just track you already, with the gps devices you already own, even if you did not realize you had them in the first place. (cell phone)

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:21 AM
They don't need to install a stand alone gps, all they've gotta do is track your car's security system or in car sat nav system or you cell phone.

You do have an expectation of privacy in your own driveway especially if it's gated or enclosed.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

The government is here to keep us safe from TERRORISTS. If they need data on my innocent activities to help them catch terrorists, then so be it. They will surely only use this information to keep PUBLIC ORDER. Public order will ensure safety, as "strange" or "odd" DEVIATIONS FROM THE NORM would surely tip them off to TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

In terms of the federal government, the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America makes perfectly clear why that federal government exists:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your histrionic claims of the government being here to keep us safe from TERRORISTS, clearly ignores the fact that government failed miserably on 9/11. Further, your bogus claim of PUBLIC ORDER is a far cry from Domestic Tranquility. Your emphasis on safety at the expense of freedom demonstrates your disregard for the Constitutional restraints placed upon government, and the historical context in which that Constitution was written.

Many members in this site have all ready, and I have no doubt will continue to quote Benjamin Franklin on the willingness to sacrifice freedom in the name of safety, so I will refrain from quoting him here, and only point out to you that the federal government exists, as do state governments, to protect the inalienable rights of the people.

People need to wake up and realize that when you are in public view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is a gross misinterpretation of privacy laws, and a mistake of fact. One should not equate private people in public view with public figures in public view. What is confidential is confidential. Take just the example of e-mails in public systems:

Content of e-mail in public systems are confidential.

~18 USC § 2702(a~

Numerous Supreme Court Cases speak specifically to the right to privacy of an individual, including United State v Morton Salt Co.

It is unnecessary here to examine the question of whether a corporation is entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Although the 'right to be let alone — the most comprehensive or rights and the right most valued by civilized men,' is not confined literally to searches and seizures as such, but extends as well to the orderly taking under compulsion of process, neither incorporated nor unincorporated associations can plead an unqualified right to conduct their affairs in secret. While they may and should have protection from unlawful demands made in the name of public investigations, corporations can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy.

I point to this case specifically because a distinction is made between the corporation, which is a public company and not private, and the private individual.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court cannot always be relied upon to uphold the 4th Amendment is inviolable, it is worth citing Justice Brandies in a dissenting opinion from Olmstead v United States:

the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It was worth citing this dissent because nearly forty years later The Supreme Court prudently reversed their own decision in Olmstead, with the ruling of Katz v United States taking to heart Justice Brandies wise words.

People who enter a psychiatrists office are in public view when they do so. This does not mean they have surrendered any right to privacy regarding what was said to that psychiatrist. People who enter a church to give confession are in public view when they do so, and often times the times and dates of confessions are made public. This does not give anyone the right to know what was said in those confessions.

The right to privacy is not surrendered simply because a person is in "public view" and the balance between public safety, and the right to privacy has long been a vexing perplexity to government officials. It is, quite simply, erroneous to assume that people surrender their right to privacy simply because they are in public view.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

Actually, if you really think DEEEEPLY into this situation, it makes perfect sense and is actually a rather good idea.

The government is here to keep us safe from TERRORISTS. If they need data on my innocent activities to help them catch terrorists, then so be it. They will surely only use this information to keep PUBLIC ORDER. Public order will ensure safety, as "strange" or "odd" DEVIATIONS FROM THE NORM would surely tip them off to TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

That is the most horrific and frightening thing I have heard all year long. Now, I know that others think as you do, however they tend not to be too vocal about it as that kind of thinking is the very anti-thesis of both liberty and freedom. That is about the most "unAmerican" thing I have heard in a long time and it basically desicrates the graves of all brave men who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

I won't go into detail as to why it is so wrong and "unAmerican", as a couple others have done just that and since one response was so well done, any other explantion by me would only be redundant.

With that being said, many argue that government is the terrorist and while I'm not ready to conclude on that yet, I do know that it matters not what tyrant supresses your freedom, as you are still oppressed. It's like jumping from a burning ship to a sinking one.

Let me ask you this, why is it that you believe government has your best interest at heart? What motive do they have to look out for you? In fact, they have every reason not to, or they have every reason to look out for those interests that contradict your own. Your vote doesn't really matter, as you will obviously buy whatever they are selling you. They are going to look out for the interests that benefit them, such as those with money or more power, which usually equals money or wealth. With that money, they could easily buy an add or lobby the media and you apparently will eat it hook, line and sinker without an inkling of self logical thought. Even if it did matter, you most likely have no way to ensure that your vote was cast, with the elctronic voting machines and all. However, all of this is really besides the point as government's purpose is not what you wish it to be anyway.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:15 AM
This sort of thing is already happening in the UK. Over here one can be spied on by their local council for a full range of things, including: suspicion that you're living outside the catchement area of your child's school, letting your dog foul, not putting the correct waste into the correct bin etc.

The waste disposal situation here, at least under our previous Labour government was bad, and I mean bad, and in most places it still is. Some councils have fitted bins with microchips to tell them how heavy they are when they are tipped into the dustcart. After that, they can then determine if the bin is over the expected weight for someone who's been using the recycling bin, and issue a fine!

For anyone in the UK, to check if your wheelie bin contains a microchip, look under the rim underneath the lid, you'll see a round hole, in most cases these are empty, in others, they contain a black, round, albeit rather large microchip.

They look like this:

While the US government seem to to have the right to do this, and probably are, the UK government is doing it.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by The Chez]

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:17 AM
I find the story about a guy in New Zealand from a few years back who found digital listening and tracking devices installed in his car after it was impounded - discovered them and removed them and placed them on an on-line trading site. He was consequently charged for attempting to sell government property.

Can't find the original story, but it is mentioned on the following site:

"Man finds police tracking devices in cars The Dominion Post | Friday, 7 September 2007

A police operation to covertly follow a man came to an abrupt halt when the man found tracking devices planted in his car, ripped them out, and listed them for sale on Trade Me.

Ralph Williams, of Cromwell, said he found the devices last week in his daughter's car, which he uses, and in his flatmate's car, when the cars were returned by police after being seized and searched.

Police have neither confirmed nor denied they placed the devices. But Mr Williams said a mobile phone Sim card in one of the devices appeared to transmit messages to the mobile phone of Detective Sergeant Derek Shaw, of Central Otago CIB.

Mr Williams also claimed he had e-mails from Mr Shaw saying: "If you have got something of ours it would be good to get it back. You can call me and I can come meet you."

Mr Williams placed one of the devices on Trade Me with a price of $250. The ad read: "Used government covert surveillance tracking. No police to bid on this ..."

A Trade Me spokesman said the listing was removed yesterday "at the request of the New Zealand Police"...."

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:51 AM
Does this really surprise anyone? Really? The government can do whatever it feels like at this point in history. Loopholes are built into local state and federal laws so they can do whatever they deem necessary at the time.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:54 AM
Mild vulgarity coming your way.

Well now this is nice.
My contention is that I can now sneak into to the homes of federal employees and painfully, violently insert a tracking device in to their anal cavity so that I can keep tabs on where ever they may roam.

This DOES NOT violate their rights at all, because in this day of increasing internet pornography a person has no realistic expectation to anal privacy.

Therefor I will be making my nightly visits before long, I hope that they understand this is merely what must be done to protect us from the terrorists.

If your ass is making a beeping sound and flashing red, I already paid you a visit.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Now_Then

I guess it would boil down to weather they built the things using off the shelf components (meaning a bigger device) or specifically designed the thing (higher cost unless mass producing but much smaller size).

They're already in production, and have been for some time. I can buy them right here in my town all day long, as a private citizen. they're called "toss-ins", because one method of placing them is to just walk past a car and toss one in. They're that small, and that unnoticable.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:09 AM
reply to post by Ian McLean

Thanks for posting that. Heading to work so I don't have time now, but I'll give it a read through once I get a chance.

reply to post by rusethorcain

As I stated before, I have nothing to hide. I still care. Not because I'm a criminal as some have implied, but because I don't want myself or anyone else being tracked just because they can. If I've done something wrong, fine. Get a warrant and track me. Otherwise, no.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:29 AM
If they are found at night, they will be found in the morning.

Let the feds explain that.

nuf said.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in