Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 397
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 280
George Spelvin 267
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70799
biomed163389
Yssup Rider61090
gman4453297
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48713
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42893
The_Waco_Kid37233
CryptKicker37224
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2011, 11:53 PM   #1
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default Justice Breyer is Right

You simply can't trust the Supreme Court. I thought CJ Roberts was a good choice, but if he supports this, I will be very disappointed. Don't worry about me, SC Justices disappoint me all the time. But this is a case we can't lose. Justice Breyer is right. I hope they listen to him.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ian-government

CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 01:48 AM   #2
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Yes, but where do you draw a principled line. I read an interesting article on SCOTUSblog.com on the oral argument and the lawyer for the guy who was convicted said that a GPS tail of one day was OK, but one of more than one day wasn't. Where the fuck do you get that?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/ar...get-a-warrant/
TexTushHog is online now   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 06:19 AM   #3
budman33
Valued Poster
 
budman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 30, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,648
Default

A GPS tracker has to be installed so I would think it should fall into the same category as a wiretap. This wasn't tracking like your kids cellphone or installing a hidden app on your iphone to track your SO (hobby phones!), or Apple having access to your gps location which is another topic.

a GPS tracker is usually installed under the hood or wheel well. I think they overstepped if their warrant had expired and actually covered the locator in the first place.
budman33 is offline   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 07:19 AM   #4
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

I believe the issue at hand is whether the government can track a person using GPS without having to get a warrant. If I am mistaken, let me know. If the government gets a warrant, I think the plan would be Constitutional.

TTH, I don't know where they get that. Creative lawyering, I guess.
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 09:29 AM   #5
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default

I don't know the details of this case; but the correct solution IMO would be to allow a phone function that blocks all (or some) GPS tracking...being voluntary fits with my idea of free and open society.
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 10:11 AM   #6
budman33
Valued Poster
 
budman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 30, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,648
Default

GPS trackers arent phones. I use them for Penetration testing when it is in scope. If I do anything out of scope I open myself to Legal issues so I would think the Govt would also have to meet 'scope' ie. Have a non-expired Warrant or also face the lawyers.
budman33 is offline   Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 10:53 AM   #7
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default Government Intrusion

People will get a new fangled item like OnStar, and marvel at how "it knows where I am at all of the time"

Try saying it like this. "It KNOWS where I am at ALL OF THE TIME".
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 05:44 PM   #8
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by budman33 View Post
A GPS tracker has to be installed so I would think it should fall into the same category as a wiretap. This wasn't tracking like your kids cellphone or installing a hidden app on your iphone to track your SO (hobby phones!), or Apple having access to your gps location which is another topic.

a GPS tracker is usually installed under the hood or wheel well. I think they overstepped if their warrant had expired and actually covered the locator in the first place.
A wiretap is on a private call wherein there is an expectation of privacy. A GPS on an automobile is by definition monitoring of a person when he is in public, where one doesn't have an expectation of privacy. There is a long line of cases that a police officer can follow you (either on foot, or by vehicle) while you are out and about. They put the GPS on your car under the fender well while it is in a public parking lot. It's just a higher tech way to follow you around while you're in public. That would be the government's argument. And the way in which it would distinguish this situation from a wire tap.

The case in question didn't involve a cell phone. It involved a device that was place on the Defendant's vehicle under the bumper (or somewhere similar) while the car was parked in public.

COG, it's just like a copy tailing a guy. No probably cause is needed and since he's in public, there is no expectation of privacy. The difference is, and what seemed to disturb the justices (and me, for that matter) is that this didn't require a person to follow him, and it was 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Here is a recap of oral argument:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/ar...get-a-warrant/

From there you should be able to find merits briefs, etc. It's really a fascinating case because to rule for the Defendant they absolutely have to overrule a fairly recent precedent, U.S. v. Knotts (1983) which stated that, "A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”
TexTushHog is online now   Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 06:03 PM   #9
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

Well, I still think "probably" cause is needed. It's different to watch a person, it is quite another to place a foreign object on his/her vehicle with the purpose to track them.

Do you really think it is ok for the government to be able to watch our every move? I thought you liked Justice Breyer.
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 10:42 PM   #10
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

gps tracking is similar to manual surveillance and does not need a warrant at least according to the govt. defense .

If they stick a tracker under the bumper or wheel well, I don't think a warrant is needed. But if they stick it inside the vehicle, then I think a warrant is needed.

there was this story (I don't know if its true) that an airplane mechanic in Alaska was working on an aircraft that wasn't working right and finds this gps tracker inappropriately placed inside the aircraft's innards. He was told by the police to leave it alone or he'll get trouble.
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 11:04 PM   #11
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

Then police state here we come. No, wait. Police state, here we are.

CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 05:21 PM   #12
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

I think that the Court will turn the case around. The question is will they do it by broadly overruling Knotts, which I'd like to see; or instead by somehow finding a quasi-principled way to limit the surveillance.
TexTushHog is online now   Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 05:29 PM   #13
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy View Post
Well, I still think "probably" cause is needed. It's different to watch a person, it is quite another to place a foreign object on his/her vehicle with the purpose to track them.

Do you really think it is ok for the government to be able to watch our every move? I thought you liked Justice Breyer.
Probably cause is not needed according to Knotts just to observe a person in public, either directly or via a beeper implanted on his car. Frankly, I think Knotts should be overruled. I think Bryer is the most disappointing of Clinton's appointees because he's the most conservative, but he's correct in this case.

I'm just pointing out that if you accept the premise that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public, this is a hard case. And it's certainly a hard case when you have Knotts out there.

I would discard the "expectation of privacy" test and instead talk about personal autonomy and freedom from government suspicion and interference of you daily activities whether in public or not. However, that flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent. I just think that technology is such that we need to erect historically unprecedented barriers between the State and the individual to maintain the proper balance between the two and maintain what Justice Douglas called the "right to be left alone."

Of course Constitutional originalists will say that there is no "right to be left alone" and that I would be "legislating from the bench." And if you believe in strict constructionism, sure, I would. But I think that you read the spirit of the document into the present era and take account of present circumstances. And I'm a firm believer in unenumerated rights. But I would have no problem at all telling the government, not "No," but "Hell, no!" in this case. And I'd do it in the most radical way possible to expand the scope of the Forth Amendment.
TexTushHog is online now   Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 07:24 PM   #14
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

justice bryer conservative???? lol, I think hes more of a moderate.
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 10:25 PM   #15
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

That just shows you how liberal TTH is.
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved