Technology and the Law

Technology and the Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 3:12:11 AM)
SAN FRANCISCO – Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage. The wire was attached to a strange magnetic device that puzzled Afifi and the mechanic. They freed it from the car and posted images of it online, asking for help in identifying it. Two days later, FBI agents arrived at Afifi's Santa Clara apartment and demanded the return of their property — a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights. One federal judge wrote that the widespread use of the device was straight out of George Orwell's novel, "1984". "By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives," wrote Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a blistering dissent in which a three-judge panel from his court ruled that search warrants weren't necessary for GPS tracking. But other federal and state courts have come to the opposite conclusion. .............. The federal appeals court based in Washington D.C. said in August that investigators must obtain a warrant for GPS in tossing out the conviction and life sentence of Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner convicted of operating a cocaine distribution ring. That court concluded that the accumulation of four-weeks worth of data collected from a GPS on Jones' Jeep amounted to a government "search" that required a search warrant. Judge Douglas Ginsburg said watching Jones' Jeep for an entire month rather than trailing him on one trip made all the difference between surveilling a suspect on public property and a search needing court approval. "First, unlike one's movements during a single journey, the whole of one's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood anyone will observe all those movements is effectively nil," Ginsburg wrote. The state high courts of New York, Washington and Oregon have ruled similarly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants What do you think? Should search warrants be required to plant these devices?

hertz -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 4:20:57 AM)
Yes - search warrant should be required. The whole point of the Judiciary is that it should protect the citizen from the actions of state bodies like the FBI. Question: If the student has been unlawfully spied on, does he have a right to redress? If I was him, I'd want to sue the FBI to within an inch of their sorry hides.

pahunkboy -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 7:38:27 AM)
That teck is pretty old.

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 7:56:12 AM)
Absolutely a warrant with probable cause is required by law. here are a few exceprts Law enforcement advocates for the devices say quote: GPS can eliminate time-consuming stakeouts and old-fashioned "tails" with unmarked police cars This is just SSDD.... convince you to acquiesce your rights for expedience! Yes it costs to much great bullshit story to convince you to AGREE as in CONSENT to give up your rights. -As in CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED beyond that of any slave in history. Just another trick because in law, when you have an obligation to speak SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE! If you do not speak against formally you AGREE and agency constantly fires a barrage of this kind of trash 24/7 at the people constantly trying to write the new contract that allows them to do this kind of shit! George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr said the issue boils down to public vs. private. That is true but what is bullshit is that public means government! They want you to think public means out among others and it does not! Your body is private your car is private convincing you by INFERENCE that that it is public takes them off the hook for fraud!!!! WHen people figger out they are being scammed by every damn agency out there they will start making these agencys PROVE UP THE CLAIM in court and ONLY then will you see change not before! Voting the bumms out till hell freezes over will not change a damn thing! As long as the GPS devices are attached to vehicles on public roads, Kerr believes the U.S. Public (TRUSTEES) superimposed (PRETENDED), as sovereign OVER-LORD to RULE their creator (GRANTOR of the trust), the sovereign people. Not sovereign to sovereign interaction as this country was intended to operate. Supreme Court will decide no warrant is needed. The fox guarding all that court/police et al REVENUE hen-house! To decide otherwise, he said, would ignore a long line of previous 4th Amendment decisions allowing for warrantless searches as long as they're conducted on public property. That is a tort and a trespass on the private person and the private persons property. Public in terms of their jurisdiction means "government EMPLOYEES" not YOU being out amongst or in a group of other people. -so even when you are among others, your "PERSON" and effects are private. UNLESS YOU ARE A TRUSTEE AKA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE!! That should be obvious to people. If you and your body and your property were NOT private anyone could grab your ass, screw you on the spot, take your car, use your cell phone put surveillance devices on your property with out your express consent---(PERMISSION). -what they are doing is all fraud. "The historic line is that public surveillance is not covered by the 4th Amendment," Kerr said. They have CONSTRUED this guy to be a ward of the state that is why they use the word PUBLIC! You see people you have to be a fucking attorney just to understand what the assholes are saying which is why this is SYNTAX TERRORISM and an attack on Americans, citizens, and lawful aliens. AGAIN- To decide otherwise, he said, would ignore a long line of previous 4th Amendment decisions allowing for warrantless searches as long as they're conducted on public property You think they are talking about THEIR property when it is YOUR property as you are a shareholder as one of the public. They are claiming that they have jurisdiction because you are on THEIR property but you AS A SHAREHOLDER wherever your feet land or your wheels are is YOUR PROPERTY as you are a party to the common land (public) as a SHAREHOLDER not a TRUSTEE and servant. Now if this is not a huge scam and fraud being perpetrated upon the people and rather than protecting their rights subjecting them to slavery through their own ignorance please tell me what is. In my world the ignorant has a right to their liberty and freedoms regardless of the level of their knowledge and expertise of lack thereof. as long as they're conducted on public property Again that applies to gubmint trustees NOT the people! We own the fucking joint NOT them!

tazzygirl -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 7:57:51 AM)
ummm.. excuse me... can you ever get your point across without attacking???

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:13:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ummm.. excuse me... can you ever get your point across without attacking??? I did not attack one poster on this board ether express or implied. I am DEFENDING the guy not attacking him! I am a peaceful person I never attack anyone or thing. Did you mean strong criticism? Besides look at the great education you are getting in law. You can take this very fundamental "educational" material that that took me years of study that I pass on to you and build off of it and when you are competent and learned take it any court and kick azz!

tazzygirl -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:17:26 AM)
I never said you attacked anyone personally. There are different forms of aggression in the written form. Use of language, utilizing all caps... none of these are necessary to get your point across. What they do is make me just want to glaze right over your points. I dont want to read a post full of f-bombs and such.

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:21:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I never said you attacked anyone personally. There are different forms of aggression in the written form. Use of language, utilizing all caps... none of these are necessary to get your point across. What they do is make me just want to glaze right over your points. I dont want to read a post full of f-bombs and such. You mean its no longer construed as [emphasis] and now that is an attack? I emphasize specific words for a VERY good reason. I apologize if it does not meet your aesthetic standards....

tazzygirl -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:24:11 AM)
underlining is emphasis... bolding is emphasis... all caps is construed as yelling. and of course you may post as you wish. and of course i may ignore them as i wish. please, do continue with your rant here though.

DarkSteven -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:24:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Question: If the student has been unlawfully spied on, does he have a right to redress? If I was him, I'd want to sue the FBI to within an inch of their sorry hides. Nope. All the evidence gathered improperly is thrown out. That's pretty standard. The REAL bugaboo comes when evidence gathered illegally is used as the basis for evidence then gathered legally. For example, let's say that a GPS attached to a car identifies that a suspect spends time at a storage locker. The cops then get a warrant and find incriminating evidence in the locker. Although the evidence was found legally, the info about the locker itself was found illegally.

slvemike4u -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:35:36 AM)
Fruit of the poison tree?....Forcing law enforcement to show that they could have obtained the location of the storage locker independently from another wholely untainted source.

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl underlining is emphasis... bolding is emphasis... all caps is construed as yelling. and of course you may post as you wish. and of course i may ignore them as i wish. please, do continue with your rant here though. you are the one ranting about the way I post. I defended that kid with a realone law review. He can kick their asses if he knows how or hires a zillion dollar attorney and his name warren buffet etc LOL

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 8:39:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Question: If the student has been unlawfully spied on, does he have a right to redress? If I was him, I'd want to sue the FBI to within an inch of their sorry hides. Nope. All the evidence gathered improperly is thrown out. That's pretty standard. The REAL bugaboo comes when evidence gathered illegally is used as the basis for evidence then gathered legally. For example, let's say that a GPS attached to a car identifies that a suspect spends time at a storage locker. The cops then get a warrant and find incriminating evidence in the locker. Although the evidence was found legally, the info about the locker itself was found illegally. circular reasoning man. your are advocating direct violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th with your position. you may wish to review how to distinguish public from public in my previous post.

TheHeretic -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 10:13:49 AM)
This is an interesting situation. I think these trackers certainly qualify as an intrusion, just as I think that simply getting the OnStar information from cars so equipped, or the cell phone location record, should require the proper process of the 4th Amendment.

DarkSteven -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 10:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Question: If the student has been unlawfully spied on, does he have a right to redress? If I was him, I'd want to sue the FBI to within an inch of their sorry hides. Nope. All the evidence gathered improperly is thrown out. That's pretty standard. The REAL bugaboo comes when evidence gathered illegally is used as the basis for evidence then gathered legally. For example, let's say that a GPS attached to a car identifies that a suspect spends time at a storage locker. The cops then get a warrant and find incriminating evidence in the locker. Although the evidence was found legally, the info about the locker itself was found illegally. circular reasoning man. your are advocating direct violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th with your position. you may wish to review how to distinguish public from public in my previous post. I'm stating that evidence found improperly will be thrown out, and asking a question about evidence found legally but the chain that it was arrived at, was illegal. I'm not advocating anything. I consider my car to be private property. The roads that it drives on are public. So the car's movements could be argued either way, to be public or private.

Real0ne -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 11:46:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Question: If the student has been unlawfully spied on, does he have a right to redress? If I was him, I'd want to sue the FBI to within an inch of their sorry hides. Nope. All the evidence gathered improperly is thrown out. That's pretty standard. The REAL bugaboo comes when evidence gathered illegally is used as the basis for evidence then gathered legally. For example, let's say that a GPS attached to a car identifies that a suspect spends time at a storage locker. The cops then get a warrant and find incriminating evidence in the locker. Although the evidence was found legally, the info about the locker itself was found illegally. circular reasoning man. your are advocating direct violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th with your position. you may wish to review how to distinguish public from public in my previous post. I'm stating that evidence found improperly will be thrown out, and asking a question about evidence found legally but the chain that it was arrived at, was illegal. I'm not advocating anything. I consider my car to be private property. The roads that it drives on are public. So the car's movements could be argued either way, to be public or private. Generally speaking your car is private property if we do not include that the state was given the manufacturers certificate of origin (title) upon which they issue a "certificate" of title to you which means "evidence" that title exists since certificate of title is not in itself title and to be an allodial owner you need title. However that aside lets assume your car is 100% your property. The public in the sense of a road is joint tenancy. The space you occupy on that road is your private domain since as I said you are a lawful shareholder. The public is in a political sense and is the gubmint trustees in the execution of their sworn duties UNDER the constitution (you are over it) which are to uphold the rules of the constitution which they swore to uphold your rights! Hence placing any kind of device on someones car is trespass and a tort. In as much as evidence goes, another tort because they did the acts without constitutional authority hence operating outside their jurisdiction and caused the kid personal injury because now the kid must go to a court to defend a right they should have protected in the first place. Do I hear pass that bond over to me? The kid needs to get an attorney to get the evidence thrown out. If the attorney does not litigate the matter it will NOT get thrown out. Courts are not about whats right, they are about whats "argued". So there is no assurance what so ever that any remedy will be had for that kid. My point is that several rights were violated to get to that point once they trespassed on the kids property and case. when these guys talk about something being constitutional they are always talking about gubmint employees and those who "consent" to be "SUBJECTS" to it or citizens of it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 12:32:00 PM)
Id love to find one of those babies on my car. I'd stick it to a shipping container that was headed for a port city and watch the Fibbies go APESHIT

hertz -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 2:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Id love to find one of those babies on my car. I'd stick it to a shipping container that was headed for a port city and watch the Fibbies go APESHIT The when they turn up whining about their missing property, deny all knowledge of it - it's not as if they'll wanna go to court over it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Technology and the Law (10/17/2010 2:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Id love to find one of those babies on my car. I'd stick it to a shipping container that was headed for a port city and watch the Fibbies go APESHIT The when they turn up whining about their missing property, deny all knowledge of it - it's not as if they'll wanna go to court over it. BINGO

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875