Comments on: “U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars”

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:37:49 +0000

Note new update added to the story, including a proposal (which DEA says was not acted on) to cooperate with BATF to track license plates of gun show attendees.

By: Allan

Allan — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:05:10 +0000

I wanted to jump in give my 2 cents.

IMHO, these surveillance techniques are constitutional. But they should not be used by the government. I am very wary of the government keeping too much information about the citizens.

To me, collecting the data is simply “un-American.” It may be constitutional, but it just is not right. The executive should not do it and Congress should make it illegal if the executive chooses to do it.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:02:27 +0000

As pointed out by L.C. Burgundy, the Jones decision relies heavily on the underlying fact that the GPS device was attached, and therefore intruded upon, the personal property of the suspect. It does not purport to address a situation where, say, a drone is able to follow and record the movement of the vehicle on public streets without any physical intrusion on the suspect’s property.

By: L. C. Burgundy

L. C. Burgundy — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:02:30 +0000

VMS,

The problem here is the data is collected uninvasively and in public locations. This is not attaching any device to a vehicle or person. The only input is pictures taken in public. Like I said, I don’t think any court would provide relief from this.

It’s an interesting question compared to the apparently popular support of cameras on police officers, despite the obvious information-gathering possibilities there as well if the data from those is spooled into data-searching algorithms. It seems to be a question of how much information is collected and how it’s analyzed to decide what exactly won’t be allowed. (I think, in reality, it will be difficult to curb these kinds of programs, especially if they’re not used as direct evidence in cases, but rather as pointers to places or people where there may be evidence. I also think it’s more a symptom of things like the drug war than anything else, and I’d rather just stop that than change the terms of the war.)

By: VMS

VMS — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:38:34 +0000

In the United States v Jones, SCOTUS in affirmed the D. C. Circuit’s holding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment.
From Wikipedia: “The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. During the investigation, the government obtained cell site location data with a 2703(d) order under the Stored Communications Act.[10] In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the government sought to use this data instead of the GPS data it had collected. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled in December 2012 that the government could use the cell site data against Jones.[48] A new trial began in January 2013[49] after Mr Jones rejected 2 plea offers of 15 to 22 years with credit for time served.[50] In March 2013,[51] a mistrial was declared with the jury evenly split. Mr. Jones had represented himself at trial.[52][53] The Government planned for a fourth trial[54][55] but in May 2013 Jones accepted a plea bargain of 15 years with credit for time served.[56][57]

In October 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the unanswered question of “whether warrantless use of GPS devices would be ‘reasonable — and thus lawful — under the Fourth Amendment [where] officers ha[ve] reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause’ to execute such searches.”[58] United States v. Katzin was the first relevant appeals court ruling in the wake of Jones to address this topic. The appeals court in Katzin held that a warrant was indeed required to deploy GPS tracking devices, and further, that none of the narrow exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement (e.g. exigent circumstances, the “automobile exception”, etc.) were applicable.[59][60]”

But in United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), a Maryland District Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act which seeks to limit government surveillance using geolocation information such as signals from mobile phones and GPS devices is stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House. It was introduced in 2011.

By: D

Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:18:58 +0000

Interesting questions, LCB. Here are some more:
How am I going to ask for relief if I don’t know about it or if I don’t have (classified) proof? How am I going to find out that one of our secret organizations is spying on me individually?
Why should I need to petition the courts to opt out of this degree of surveillance? Is this not covered implicitly in the Constitution (maybe 9th, 10th, 14th Ams)?

Thanks Mark R. – incidental vs. systematic seems to be the distinguishing factor.

And finally, as a linguist, I can speak with authority on the word “spying”. “Spy” absolutely is the right word. Check out the etymology if you so desire.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:36:07 +0000

I never said that I would like it, or see no harm in it. However, New law will have to be developed to provide protection from it as existing law, and the recognized rights upon which those laws are based, do not.

By: L. C. Burgundy

L. C. Burgundy — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:13:24 +0000

Mind you, I don’t like the program, but I just don’t think anyone’s rights are actually being violated in the sense that pretty much any court is going to be willing or able to provide relief, whether it’s a public or private entity doing the “spying” (a term which doesn’t really seem accurate in this context.)

I say this as someone who operates a camera in my car that runs whenever the ignition is on. License plates and people are recognizable in those videos. Am I spying on people? When would I cross the line into spying? If I record people driving by outside my house, is that spying too? Is it only spying if I have a network of cameras on multiple vehicles, or at multiple properties? Or does the video analysis software that analyzes people coming and going constitute the spying? These are questions that are going to have to be answered concretely to lobby for real limits to these programs rather than indiscriminately pounding the table and proclaiming “spying” is occurring.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:33:17 +0000

I keep thinking what I would feel like if a single person began observing me, note what I am doing, record me, or otherwise document my location and actions.

Most / many / some would say “that’s stalking.”

Now imagine that single person amplified and increased by a thousand thousand fold – all paid for with my dollars taken at the point of the government sword.

What a great thought – paying the government to spy on me.

I can go to court and get a court order to stop someone from stalking me but it seems the police and the government can observe and stalk with impunity.

I respect what some of the commentators are saying here as to no expectation of privacy out in public. But at the same time, the government collecting data on you before even hinting that there is a crime to investigate is against what this country was founded upon and what most people consider “freedom.”.

By: Mark Robb

Mark Robb — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:20:41 +0000

Richard , While you may be right in a technical sense, that while in the public domain our actions and movements may be observed, documented, and collected by both public and private entities without our consent. This incidental collecting of our personal habits and whereabouts is due to normal lifestyle habits of repetitive patterns of movement and activity people with jobs, children, and who participate in various social events tend to do. However, when the incidental observation and collection of data is directed with intent at a specific individual or when the entire data and surveillance collection abilities of an organization are directed either towards an individual specifically or with the intent to collabotate all available information on all known individuals, then this steps over the boundaries of incidental data collection and becomes akin to stalking.