• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Its legal to secretly track US citizens

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Muslim Student Discovers FBI Tracking Device on His Car | The Blaze


Afifi’s discovery comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declaring it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly use tracking devices on a suspect’s car without a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway. In a similar case, however, the D.C. Circuit Court came to a different conclusions, meaning that a Supreme Court showdown over law enforcement’s use of GPS technologies may be coming in the near future.
Ninth Circuit Court: Secret GPS Tracking is Legal | Executive Gov

You know to be perfectly honest here, I realize now why the left was so freaked out for years. As much contempt as the current administration has for TeaParty groups, I could see this being a huge problem.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
This is the type of thing people need to hear about more often. I read this story yesterday and reading it again I'm still just as disgusted. I'm a Reddit user and a week or so ago when this kid first posted these pictures asking if anyone knew what the device was I was shocked when the answer came up. Are we really following middle easterners around for no good reason?

Listen, we all want to be safe, but when we allow our government to do things like this (as the famous quote goes) we don't deserve either safety or freedom.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Quote: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Source: The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME

@ MiT: Why would those on the left be the least bit concerned about a ruling from what is called the most liberal circuit court in the country?

@ Cons. Their ruling was against a marijuana grower. Who would have thought that the Feds would use this ruling to track whoever it sees fit.
------
You are also aware that the Va. appeals court has also approved warrantless GPS tracking, right?

http://www.generalforum.com/895592-post1.html
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Quote: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Source: The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
Why are you citing TIME? I thought they were one of the left bias sources? :D

Also, his reasoning is flat out stupid. But on the other hand, he's partially right that the very wealthy do not suffer the same surveillance the rest of us do and if there's a money trail to be followed it may lead to these sources. It still doesn't warrant this kind of action without some serious proof, not just a hunch. This guy is using the excuse of privilege, the right uses the excuse of drugs and terrorism. Everyone has their enemies and most of them are wrong or misguided.

@ MiT: Why would those on the left be the least bit concerned about a ruling from what is called the most liberal circuit court in the country?
Maybe because not everyone on the left thinks the way you think they do? I don't think anyone is concerned at all with the political slant of a circuit court and I doubt most people knew that was possible. People on the left are just as concerned about this sort of human rights violation. Just because Obama has decided to follow in the right's footsteps and continue with their brand of security doesn't all of a sudden make it their idea or prerogative.

@ Cons. Their ruling was against a marijuana grower. Who would have thought that the Feds would use this ruling to track whoever it sees fit.
I would have thought it to be honest. Is it that surprising? The government has been funding the very unsuccessful war on drugs for decades. What better cause to rally behind? I mean, not many people are going to defy them because the government can just label them "pro-drug" and thus "pro-death-of-America-and-all-its-values". We see cops get away with this kind of unlawful justice everyday, it shouldn't be surprising to see the feds doing it too.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Why are you citing TIME? I thought they were one of the left bias sources? :D
Yeah, that was pretty sweet how I used a left-leaning source to attack the most liberal 9th circus court! :lol:

Also, his reasoning is flat out stupid. But on the other hand, he's partially right that the very wealthy do not suffer the same surveillance the rest of us do and if there's a money trail to be followed it may lead to these sources. It still doesn't warrant this kind of action without some serious proof, not just a hunch. This guy is using the excuse of privilege, the right uses the excuse of drugs and terrorism. Everyone has their enemies and most of them are wrong or misguided.
You are aware that the conservative judge, Kozinski, was the dissenting judge, right?!

Maybe because not everyone on the left thinks the way you think they do?
I guess my sarcasm didn't come through, I'll try harder next time! :lol:

I don't think anyone is concerned at all with the political slant of a circuit court and I doubt most people knew that was possible.
I am very concerned with the political slant of the second highest court in the land.

People on the left are just as concerned about this sort of human rights violation.
Only when it is applied to someone on the left. When the end justifies the means it is OK, like in the case of the rapist or the marijuana grower. But sooner or later the means is used to justify the end.

Just because Obama has decided to follow in the right's footsteps and continue with their brand of security doesn't all of a sudden make it their idea or prerogative.
Yet this has nothing to do with Obama.

I would have thought it to be honest. Is it that surprising? The government has been funding the very unsuccessful war on drugs for decades. What better cause to rally behind? I mean, not many people are going to defy them because the government can just label them "pro-drug" and thus "pro-death-of-America-and-all-its-values". We see cops get away with this kind of unlawful justice everyday, it shouldn't be surprising to see the feds doing it too.
Apparently my sarcasm in this thread is a COMPLETE FAIL. I will try harder to be more sarcastic in the future! :lol:

But anyhow, back to my point about the duality of the left. Being the most liberal appeals court in the land is a great thing (google: liberal circuit), until their decisions that reinterpret the constitution and bill of rights are applied to those on the left or those with whom the left sympathizes.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I wouldn't worry too much about the FBI not being able to bug a rich person's car. Assuming they ever leave their property, just put the equipment on then.

My initial reaction was much like everyone else's here, that this sounds very wrong. But really, is it particularly different than if they'd decided to have him followed by agents for X amount of time? This is just a cheaper and more efficient way to do that. They're only tracking where he goes, which technically any person could do just by following him whenever he drove somewhere. In fact, following him could include any times he went somewhere via other means of transportation (which now that this is big news, any real terrorist with a brain would do).
------
Also, his reasoning is flat out stupid. But on the other hand, he's partially right that the very wealthy do not suffer the same surveillance the rest of us do and if there's a money trail to be followed it may lead to these sources.
I don't see why his reasoning is so bad (especially since he basically only said one thing, and you seemed to agree with that one thing just now)

I don't think anyone is concerned at all with the political slant of a circuit court and I doubt most people knew that was possible.
I've been bothered by the political slant of the 9th circuit court for years. They've made tons of rulings that bother me.

Oh, and Smilin? Use emoticons to show you're being sarcastic (or use [/sarcasm])
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
You are aware that the conservative judge, Kozinski, was the dissenting judge, right?!
I misread that, my bad.

I am very concerned with the political slant of the second highest court in the land.
Okay, two people so far. You know what I'm talking about, I'd bet if you asked people on the street, a lot of people would have no idea what the 9th circuit court is. I'm only being realistic in my assumptions.

Only when it is applied to someone on the left. When the end justifies the means it is OK, like in the case of the rapist or the marijuana grower. But sooner or later the means is used to justify the end.
Links? I'd like to know when this was proven.

You do realize it was the republicans who put this kind of policy into practice, right? Whatever the case, this isn't about partisanship. I very, highly doubt the FBI is going around and approaching cars saying "Wait, this guy's a registered democrat, let's go over to that car with the Palin bumper sticker." Of course people will watch out for "their own" but this is just not the case and I don't know how you can apply it here.

Yet this has nothing to do with Obama.
This sort of policy stems from the Patriot Act and we all know it. Once you set a precedent like that, others will follow. Obama has done nothing but endorse the Patriot Act so that's why I brought it up.

But anyhow, back to my point about the duality of the left. Being the most liberal appeals court in the land is a great thing (google: liberal circuit), until their decisions that reinterpret the constitution and bill of rights are applied to those on the left or those with whom the left sympathizes.
I guess I just don't see this fantasy you're seeing. You're making this out to be a left problem or a device of the left when it isn't.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
Okay, two people so far. You know what I'm talking about, I'd bet if you asked people on the street, a lot of people would have no idea what the 9th circuit court is. I'm only being realistic in my assumptions.
Well, yeah - if you ask the people on the street, they don't know all sorts of stuff that has a large effect on their lives. There have been plenty of stories about the number of people who can't name any SCotUS justices, or think Ben Franklin was a president, or whatever.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Okay, two people so far. You know what I'm talking about, I'd bet if you asked people on the street, a lot of people would have no idea what the 9th circuit court is. I'm only being realistic in my assumptions.
If we use your standard of asking people on the street about things, where would we be? You have seen Jay Walking on the Leno show, right? :lol:

We could also look at it in this light: 2 of 4 posters in this thread have a problem with it. I would bet that MiT also has a problem with it. That would be 75% of the interested parties, would it not?

Links? I'd like to know when this was proven.
That was my opinion that I was expressing.

You do realize it was the republicans who put this kind of policy into practice, right? Whatever the case, this isn't about partisanship. I very, highly doubt the FBI is going around and approaching cars saying "Wait, this guy's a registered democrat, let's go over to that car with the Palin bumper sticker." Of course people will watch out for "their own" but this is just not the case and I don't know how you can apply it here.
I realize it was police agencies that put this kind of policy into practice and that the most liberal second highest court in the land upheld the practice, as well as the state of Va.

This sort of policy stems from the Patriot Act and we all know it. Once you set a precedent like that, others will follow. Obama has done nothing but endorse the Patriot Act so that's why I brought it up.
I disagree, this sort of policy has been implemented by police agencies (not Bush or Obama), and it has now been upheld by a liberal court.

I guess I just don't see this fantasy you're seeing. You're making this out to be a left problem or a device of the left when it isn't.
No, this is a problem for all Americans that believe in individual liberty and freedom. It is an unchecked invasion of privacy by government and police agencies. I feel this is a result of activist liberal judges and courts that hold the attitude that the US Constitution is a "living document" to be interpreted base upon current popular opinion which frequently represents the opposite of the actual intent of the founders and the document as written.

So there you have it. Activist liberal judiciary that reinvents the US Constitution and the result being that it gives government more power to monitor, intimidate, and control the citizens. This should be recognized as bad by all who love freedom and liberty and from across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, it would seem that only those on the conservative/libertarian end of that spectrum recognize this kind of activism for the insidious problem that it represents.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
It's not like using technology to find out where people are going began with Bush passing the Patriot Act. Spying on people using technology or not using technology has been around for a long time. I wouldn't say the precedent started there.

I agree with Wade in that this is just like following where people are going, it's just cheaper. There is a limited amount of privacy to be expected when you are driving on public roads. You don't need a warrant to follow anyone.
 
Top