It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, I do remember that story.

I remember thinking
is wrong with these people.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


They can do this if you have a cell phone...don't kid yourself.

This device is for those who are tech savvy or those who don't have a cell phone.

It's just good planning...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I was under the impression that this was already allowed/decided. I remember reading several months ago that the FBI was now legally able to put a GPS on a car on private property without a warrant, and the judge's rational was basically something like "if you cannot afford to put a fence around your property to keep out people then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy."

Let me see if i can find the article and i'll report back.

Found it (It appears this is a 9th CoA Decision, not SC): Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves


Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.



edit on 5-1-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 




They can do this if you have a cell phone...don't kid yourself.


Another person who posts without even reading the OP.



There are many ways for them to track us but this is just another another abuse of of people's rights.


Don't kid yourself, I used to be a cell phone tech.

Helps if you read the OP BTW


LOL now I feel bad for being snappy at you so I gave you a star

edit on 5-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: remorse for being snappy



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


You could be right, the articles mention that there is an upcoming ruling in the supreme court, but the judge in MO couldn't wait for that ruling and went ahead and gave the feds permission.

If you find out I'm certainly interested.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It's all good. I did read the OP by the way. I consider myself semi-tech savvy, but if I have a imagination, I'm sure there are others who could implement said imagination.

And some of those can be creepy after all is said and done in todays tech world.

While in the service and traveling the globe, my bank routinely shut down my cards thinking that I been a victim of ID theft. Cool, but annoying. Cash is King...until the Market crashes.

Long live the King!

edit on 5-1-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I'm not really that savvy, I just thought you were implying that I wasn't aware of the ability to track us via cell phone. Even if that was the case, I shouldn't have got so sensitive


It's amazing how they can watch us, these GPS on our cars are the least of our worries. I'm addicted to my smartphone and am very glad I have nothing to hide. People who have stuff to hide need not a smart phone.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I guess a good investment to counter these GPS devices would be just to buy a GPS jammer. You can buy them anywhere, only problem is that they are pricey, but it will be worth it. Especially if you want to mess around with the feds, and get them all bent out of shape. I happened to notice on the first link while reading what the hell is a Dodge Durgano? Sure they meant Durango!

GPS Jammers



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY OF OURS!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????
edit on 1/5/2012 by YAHUWAH SAVES because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY OF OURS!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????


Destiny.

Fate.

The coming insurrection and ultimate, unavoidable correction.





posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Thanks for finding that link


I'm guessing that is what lead to this upcoming battle in the Supreme Court.

Peace.


XL5

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I think any one who finds a stand alone tracking device on their car should find a cop car and put it on it. That way it stays in the family and makes for faulty evidence, just make sure you do it in public lol. You would be visiting ALL the shady places like drug dens, chop shops, terrorist hide outs, child porn rings and or places that sell the drug caffeine!



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Removed pending verification
edit on 5-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Removed pending verification
edit on 5-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Would GPS coordinates be helpful with the verification process?




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You can't even buy these things, they only sell them to law enforcement, not the public.


Arb, this is not true. These devices have been available for a long time, and you can get yourself one on the internet in a matter of minutes.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The logic of the Judge's decision seems reasonable. If it is legal to track criminals engaged in ongoing crime such as drug trafficking, it should be legal to track a criminal in an ongoing crime such as defrauding the local government. It is interesting that the FBI is involved in a local case and possibly more is going on here than meets the eye. I think the FBI is called in to local corruption cases because local law enforcement may be compromised. Law enforcement officers may want to comment.

To those worried about this ability, like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who previously predicted that should the Supreme Court walk away with okaying the installation of such devices, “there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,”
rt.com...
the government would only need 300+ million devices and people to monitor them. That might prevent it, Steve. Breyer is a drama queen who is impressed with his passionate defenses and interpretations. He either watched one too many Jimmy Stewart lawyer movies or maybe he is afraid that the heirs to the Hoover blackmail files may tag him and find out about all those Bilderberger/NWO meetings with the other reptilians at the mother ship.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I can tell you emphatically that all cars built after 1994, the government had the ability to track every movement of your car. How do I know this? I worked in a factory that built the computer chips to do this. Ford was the first to implement it. They have refined the technology, and made it more modern. Why else do you suppose they can use OnStar to unlock your doors? You can now make calls and surf the internet from your car.

They have known since 1994, and I have been telling people since 1995, when I found out, but no one listened to me.

This is how I finally got it, as my production leader was explaining the technology, she said "they download the information via the network to the servers". I did not know what a server was, but I know now. I did not know what download was, but since then I learned.

You have to remember, the internet was still relatively new to most people and the most common type was the intranet and Arpanet. There was no massive downloading as we have today and the common term came about when people were able to download individual files, instead of just sharing them across the network. My boss used the words "download" and "Server", as we know it today. When my boss said "they" she meant the government. The factory I worked at had government contracts and in that department, it was top secret, so the rest of us did not know what was made there.

We made computer resistors for all the major companies, including Ford, General Motors, IBM, Motorola, Swedcom, and a lot of others. In fact, our factory made the resistors that became the trak stick for IBM laptops. We had a factory-wide contest to see who could choose the name for it, and trak stick was chosen. I know how they were made and how they worked. So yes, the government did this way back then and every car has been tracked since 1994.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Good thread CE !


So according to this judge the actions taken by agents is acceptable given that the defendants vehicle was on a public street. Ok. So why is it then that law enforcement whine like babies when orgs like lulzsec or antisec divulge details about law enforcement that, in many cases, is publicly available via social networks. It appears there's an expectation of privacy when cops have their public info exposed but look out if the shoe's on the other foot. I realize this is somewhat of an apples to oranges comment given they are pursuing an alleged criminal but the fact remains.
Douchebags.

brill
edit on 5-1-2012 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


There are a few instances where a local investigation would require the use of the FBI.

* - The investigation deals with crimes that are linked to cross state border / national border.
* - Its part of a joint task force, in which case the FBI arent being called in, since they were present from the begining.
* - The crime being investigated has dual crminal status (violation of state law as well as federal law - IE - countefeiting, credit card fraud, identifty theft etc).
* - The local crime has the same charactersistics of crimes committed in various other locations / states.
* - Compromised locals, but even then thats problematic for many reasons.
* - If the agency investigating requests the FBI for specialized assistance (resources the locals dont have access to).
* - If the local agency is corrupt / acting illegally / subject to a 42 USC 1983 violation.
Even a local crime with one local suspect can easily become part of a feeeral investigation if that little fish has information on the fish above him. Usually the stat / federal prosecutors get together to decide how justice is best served in that regard.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Removed pending verification
edit on 5-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Would GPS coordinates be helpful with the verification process?





I'm crying over here. Stop it guys




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join