FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants

reply to post by brill


It does seem like kind of a double standard now that you mention it.

People should not embrace this, it will only lead to more of a police state.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I guess soon they will be blocking GPS Blockers by law? I answered my own 1st question if such a thing exists and they do, costs from 200-850 a piece according to a random google search.

reply to post by brill


Thay have issues with it becasue there are wingnuts who post that info in hopes other wingnuts will exact revenge, including against the officers family.

Like the wingnut who assisinated the Missouri State Trooper through his kitchen window while his son stood right next to him.

Secondly when we track a person in the course of a criminal investigation, that information is evidence, and cannot be released to the public (a few exceptions exist).

Tracking a person and posting detailed personal informaiton about an officr, where he lives and his family arent even close to being the same thing. As an example we can look at the recent actions of a police officer who saw a pretty female, checked the vehicle stats to locate a traffic ticket, where he then went to her residence and asked for a date.

Guess who is sueing and guess how many policies and laws that officer violated. Contrary to popular belief we cant randomly run people or cars unless its during the course of offical business. In my state our state computers, which every single law enforcement agency is connected to, is randomly autdited all the time.

Any actions that are tagged are followed up on for investigation. If its found we ran a person for no reason, we can be charged with a crime.

Another example would be the officer in Georgia who ran President Barack Obamas info through their system. The officer, as well as his command staff, were a bit perplexed when Secret service agents showed up to find out why. When no valid explanation was given, IE the officer just wanted to look, he was charged.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by brill

 

It does seem like kind of a double standard now that you mention it.

People should not embrace this, it will only lead to more of a police state.

Another thing to note about when I was working at that factory, which is no longer in operation thanks to Dell. One day I was driving to work with my then husband and his sister because we worked the same shift. We lived in Ohio and the factory was in Indiana, about 45 miles away from where we lived. As we were crossing the state line, on a highway, there were no other cars in traffic, you must realize this is all farm country. We were stopped by a highway worker, but no highway vehicles parked anywhere and one state trooper sitting with his top lights flashing. The State Trooper was from Ohio, but sitting on the Indiana side facing the Ohio side.

When I stopped and the highway worker came to my window, he asked me what my business in Indiana was. I asked him why he was asking me because he was just a highway worker, and he pointed to the state trooper and said "because he will make you". I asked three more times, because my constitutional rights were being violated. The state trooper actually got out of his car facing me. I explained I only worked in Indiana but lived in that particular town. He did not make me show him my driver's license. He said then I could go, and I asked him why he was doing that, he would not answer but told me to go because the state trooper now had his hand on his pistol, but it was still snapped in the holster. We said good-bye and drove on to work.

Apparently this was happening to a few people in different parts of the state. This happened in 1995 in the middle of the day. We never heard a news report about it. Several weeks later, I had begun working the later shift and had to drive in the nighttime, and was carpooling. We came across the same area, and in the sky just above the tree tops we saw an object hovering. It was not making a sound and had red lights blinking on the bottom. I was intrigued by this so I stopped, interested. It made no sounds at all. Not many days later, Bill Clinton hosted Slobodan Milosevic in Dayton, Ohio for the peace accord meeting.

What is funny now, is that I cannot find any reference online to the Dayton Peace Accord meeting. I have looked and can't find it. They met at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which was about an hour south of where I lived. If anyone out there remembers this event, please help me find it.

Things were going on back then, and they were so innocuous, I can only see it in hindsight what they were doing.

ETA:I found it in Google, but not in Yahoo search.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Thay have issues with it becasue there are wingnuts who post that info in hopes other wingnuts will exact revenge, including against the officers family.

Like the wingnut who assisinated the Missouri State Trooper through his kitchen window while his son stood right next to him.

Ton of assumption there. It may be posted but what's done with it is not the problem or responsibility of the poster (provided the info was public). Plus, as I clearly mentioned, many of the details are already public so what is really being exposed is anyone's guess. The fact that they don't like it is irrelevant and given who they are they should know better or take precautions. Can't really complain if you are stupid enough to post it for all the world to see. I'm not saying that is the case entirely but in many instances it is.

brill

Originally posted by brill
Ton of assumption there.

Not really when its been proven in the past.

Originally posted by brill
It may be posted but what's done with it is not the problem or responsibility of the poster.

Not quite correct either. If a person posts information with the intent of a third parting using the info to take action, then they can be held accountable for posting that info. Feel free to check up on Judges who have ruled in favor of abortion laws, have ruled against people who have used sovereign citizen arguments in court and lost, in addition to Doctors who perform abortions. I can keep going but you get the idea.

Its one thing to agree or disagree with a persons actions, and its absolutely permissible to challenge them. When you post personal information in hopes of action being taken that would be illegal, its a crime.

Originally posted by brill
Plus, as I clearly mentioned, many of the details are already public so what is really being exposed is anyone's guess.

Which is an assumption on your part. Not all of our information is public. I can have my license plates restricted, as well as have it flagged for notification if they are ran by someone. My information given to the department as well as State emergency management is a matter of private record, with basic exceptions (training issues, court issues etc).

If the information posted is obtained illegally, even reposting the info illegally, can be a violation of the law if it leads to a death. Hence the reason people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and why juvenile information is restricted being they are minors.

Originally posted by brill
The fact that they don't like it is irrelevant and given who they are they should know better or take precautions. Can't really complain if you are stupid enough to post it for all the world to see. I'm not saying that is the case entirely but in many instances it is.

The same argument can be made in this case for people upset they are being tracked when its not a violation of the law in their state / federal appeals district. Maybe they should park in the garage?

Originally posted by brill
brill

Me

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Not quite correct either. If a person posts information with the intent of a third parting using the info to take action, then they can be held accountable for posting that info.

Nonsense in the extreme. Look you can paint it any way you like and given your obvious background its expected. You assume that the information is used to take action, it may not be. I won't argue that in some instances cases have evolved surrounding things like abortion nuts but the fact is that people who post crap legally, as in social networks, and who work in law enforcement have no expectation to privacy. How can you expect it when you expose it so readily. If people take that info and do whatever they do that's another matter entirely and sure it may be wrong in some cases. You conveniently avoided the social network slant and gave a specific scenario related to you and your license plate. So what, that's not what I'm talking about. Again as I clearly said if people acquire the information illegally that is a different matter entirely

To the comment about the cops who did a background search on Obama according to what info I could find these guys were placed on paid leave. Wow, tough times for them. I could find nothing else on this most likely because law enforcement won't reveal the matter (and should). Just another example of cops taking care of cops .

brill

** I don't wish any ill will to law enforcement and/or their families. I hope & know many practice common sense to ensure that their public details are limited

reply to post by brill


Again if you obtain personal information and post it and something happens to that person, you run the risk of being investigated and charged. What they will look at is how you came across that information, and the reason for posting it.

I will conceded the point about the officer using say facebook and not restricting his information.

However, explain the need to post a personal address, phone number, social security information (which is restricted btw), banking information, credit card information etc.

Now, explain to me how the officers wife / husband is fair game when its obvious their only relation is the fact they are married? Explain how naming their children, who their friends are, the phone numbers, where they go to school etc is "fair game"?

When you are going to list personal information, responsibility comes with that.

** I don't wish any ill will to law enforcement and/or their families. I hope & know many practice common sense to ensure that their public details are limited

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

For the record Brill and I see eye to eye on some issues, and are like oil and water on other issues. I respect brill and his opinion, and our disagreements, like the one above, are nothing mroe than that and are not personal towards each other.

I enjoy when people can argue the flip side of an argument and support it with intelliegence and facts.

The fun thing is just about every GPS tracking device has to have a cell site to communicate with.

Only a very few are car to car devices.

I know a harley owner that has one on his bike but found when he towed it in his metal trailer the signal no longer got to the cell tower.

www.trackwhatmatters.com...
www.trackwhatmatters.com...

This means a cell phone blocker would make the tracker useless.
www.espow.com...

Not so off topic....while I was going through a divorce, which I instigated, my ex filed for a restraining order. I didn't think twice...I thought for sure that I was done with her. I did not know that even being in Seattle 3000 miles from Boston, that she could say that I drove by her house and threatened her. I was arrested 4 times for this rhetoric. The last time I went to court, probably not the smartest thing that I have ever said, but I was mad, very mad. I told the judge that the next time a police officer attempts to arrest me for violating the restraining order...that I will defend myself with all of the knowledge that I learned in Navy Seal training. I have not had a problem since then. Why is that?

Probably because the court in Boston has jurisdiction and not where you lived?

well i guess this is offset by the fact you can shoot unknown intruders lurking under you car in the middle of the night on your property without identifying themselves as federal agents.

with so many sickos out there, you can conclude you feared for you life because you thought they were planting a bomb and trying to blow up your house.

Originally posted by randomname
well i guess this is offset by the fact you can shoot unknown intruders lurking under you car in the middle of the night on your property without identifying themselves as federal agents.

with so many sickos out there, you can conclude you feared for you life because you thought they were planting a bomb and trying to blow up your house.

Use of deadly force outside of your house is only valid in a few states, Texas being one of them. Almost all others require entrance into your house.