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.
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by billy197300
There are plenty of other means at the disposal of law enforcement to track down and find him. They may not be as efficient or convenient as turning on the GPS locator in his phone. But they do exist and can be used without violating anyone's civil liberties.edit on 15-8-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Hefficide
Another aspect of this and a smokescreen effect will rollover to the "war on drugs" - as most drug dealers tend to use throwaway phones - and change them over frequently. Opening this avenue for local law enforcement will give them a quicker way to collect evidence ( digital - texts and phone calls ) and to also track suspects.
Or so it would seem to me upon reflection.
~Heff
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by pointr97
My issue here is they can't place GPS on your car or tap your phone because you have an expectation of privacy, in both instances. But what this ruling does is by definition is says that with a pre-paid phone you do not have that same expectation of privacy. Why? Is it not still your phone? What makes it any different than a contract phone? What makes it any different than your car? It is still yours you still paid a provider for the service. This brushes aside your expectation of privacy as it pertains to the GPS locator built into your phone, by extension it also brushes aside any expectation of privacy as to the content and usage of that phone.
"Otherwise, dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent. A getaway car could not be identified and followed based on the license plate number if the driver reasonably thought he had gotten away unseen. The recent nature of cell phone location technology does not change this. If it did, then technology would help criminals but not the police."
In theory, he could've just been another person who didn't want the hassle of signing a two-year contract with a wireless carrier.