They know where you are.......

[shrubber]

meh, I don't see the big deal. The only reason any government agency would have for looking up anyone's specific location would be if there were a REASONABLE justification (i.e. danger to the person or illegal activity).

In that case, it would kinda fall within the guidelines of the fourth ammendment which protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

Searching for my location, without a warrant, is UNREASONABLE. It violates the 4th admendment.

 

[Scurvy]

It doesn't bother me. I accept that this is a part of using a cell phone, and since I don't care if the government knows where I am I'm perfectly happy using my cell phone. If I had a reason that I didn't want people to know where I was going, then I hope I'd be smart enough not to take my phone. But honestly, while it would bother me quite a bit to be required to wear some sort of tracking device, I know that having a cell phone is voluntary and it is up to each individual to decide if the benefits of having the phone are worth the potential compromise to their privacy. For me, they are.

 

[shrubber]

I dunno, I just try to think things out in both directions. I agree that it would be very good to have tracking on kids if something were to happen to them. But who has access to this tracking information? If the kid's parents were divorced and one parent had custody, is there a way the other parent could get to that information and grab the kid? The access to the information scares me. I am from Columbus, Ohio, and a few years ago we had a government employee's laptop stolen, the thief got access to all kinds of privileged information.

you can buy one here
http://https://www.amberalertgps.com/

 

[OK!]

And I find your concept of an FYI in this context to cover up an obvious political post, to be quite frank, frightning.

Exactly!

 

[OK!]

I dunno, I just try to think things out in both directions. I agree that it would be very good to have tracking on kids if something were to happen to them. But who has access to this tracking information? If the kid's parents were divorced and one parent had custody, is there a way the other parent could get to that information and grab the kid? The access to the information scares me.

In theory, yes. But with tracking the police would then be able to track the kidnapped child and return him to the custodial parent. It works both ways.

 

[Robinrs]

And the point of this is what?

ParaNOIA, will deSTROY ya!!!

 

[Barbossa]

There's a big difference between someone seeing you naked and the government having the ability (especially if they don't exercise that ability) to track your cell phone.

Try living in a 3rd world country and see what happens when the government has free access to your whereabouts, conversations, and other information.

 

[Sparx]

now don't everyone put on your tinfoil hats all at once...

honestly, does anyone understand what massive computers and staffing would be required to track down everyone, all day long? if the government really was using this to follow people, its probably people who ought to be followed.

and i really don't think that seeing your location on a gps would require a search warrant.

 

[Chelley00]

I'm a boring person to follow. Drop off kids at school, drive to work, drive to school to pick up kids, drive home. Fridays I'm off and go to the grocery store. I'd hate to be the person who has to sit there and track me

 

[Barbossa]

I say if you've got something to hide, oh course you don't want to be tracked.

The definition of "something to hide" is the crux of this issue. You may not think you have nothing to hide, but other people might feel differently about your actions. The more they know about you, the better chance they can tag what you're doing as illegal or immoral. And who here is squeaky clean? One day you jaywalk with no one around and two days later you receive a fine in the mail. Or you're an innocent bystander in a crowd that loots a store. The cops track your whereabouts by GPS and arrest you. Trust me, this can and will happen.

 

[shrubber]

You didn't answer her question.

She asked why you, personally, had a problem with cell phone tracking. You haven't given any reasons (outside of how shocked you are at other peoples' preferences) that you think it's wrong.

My comment was to her original statement of being all for the government tracking all people . I found that outrageous.

As to cell phone tracking, my problem with that has a few points.
First, unlike a body scanner, how many people know that they are being or can be tracked by the government by their cell phone? I doubt many. If there truly is 'no expectation of privacy' I would think that the cell phone might bear a large red warning label informing you of that.
Secondly, and most importantly, ( trying hard not to make broad political statements here ) that if the Gov says there is ' no expectation of privacy ' in something as simple as a cell phone call, how can it make the case that there is an' inherent right to privacy' in making law in cases like Roe?
Isn't it one or the other? It can't be both.
If there is no ' expectation of privacy ' for a cell phone call, and the Gov can track your location, review and listen to your calls, all without a warrant
or having to show probable cause, then I, as a citizen, should be able to do the same, right? Under FOI Act or the like, I should be able to walk up the Verizon store and demand to see Ashley's phone logs and location. After all, they are not private, are they?

 

[shrubber]

There would obviously have to be other evidence than a simple cell phone GPS reading to cause one to become a suspect. The police, as a general rule, don't normally run around dubbing people "suspects" willy-nilly without some decent amount of evidence. The simple fact that someone's cell phone was in the general vicinity of a committed crime is not adequate evidence.

Wrong,
Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.



Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices

http://http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

 

[shrubber]

Try living in a 3rd world country and see what happens when the government has free access to your whereabouts, conversations, and other information.

Sounds like the US, But we are not third world, ....yet.

 

[Barbossa]

There would obviously have to be other evidence than a simple cell phone GPS reading to cause one to become a suspect. The police, as a general rule, don't normally run around dubbing people "suspects" willy-nilly without some decent amount of evidence. The simple fact that someone's cell phone was in the general vicinity of a committed crime is not adequate evidence.

If the cops see you near the scene of a crime at the time of the crime, they will at least bring you in for questioning. That in itself is a harrowing experience. For some it might be worth the advantages of being tracked. For me, no thanks.

 

[Barbossa]

Sounds like the US, But we are not third world, ....yet.

You got that right.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Would you mind a law banning curtains in residential windows? If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to hide.

You want me to take down my curtains. Fine. As soon as the weather warms up, I promise I will (in the meantime, I'm hoping the insulated backing helps at least a little. I'll also open the shades as high as possible and leave them open like that until the weather chills again. And no, this is not semantics. I'm not going to replace existing window covering with anything - not shutters, not blinds, not plants, not newspaper, not clothing, nothing.

NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED WORLD: Please see shrubber for the barf bags you'll all need once I take his challenge.

 

[eliza61]

omg. They are going to break down the door to my house one day and find me posting on the DIS. Seriously, they don't need technology for that!

LOL.

Non issue for me also. This year I unfortunately owe the IRS $1500 bucks so I'm sure they know exactly where to get me and Dh.

 

[kaytieeldr]

How about elderly people who do not want a tracking device? Are we going to draw the line at forcing elderly people to get a tracker? What if the children of the elderly adult firmly believe that the elderly person needs a tracker, but that person is adamantly against getting one. Who gets the choice in this area?

The choice are - well really the choice is - that unless the "elderly" person is mentally incompetent and the child has whatever legal power is required to make decisions for the parent, there's no case/argument/choice. The person who owns my body (ME) is legally authorized to make medical decisions for me.

Searching for my location, without a warrant, is UNREASONABLE. It violates the 4th admendment.

However, there is no law or amendment protecting your cell phone. Given that the techonology exists, authorities can absolutely track your cell phone. It has no rights.

 

[shrubber]

The choice are - well really the choice is - that unless the "elderly" person is mentally incompetent and the child has whatever legal power is required to make decisions for the parent, there's no case/argument/choice. The person who owns my body (ME) is legally authorized to make medical decisions for me.

However, there is no law or amendment protecting your cell phone. Given that the techonology exists, authorities can absolutely track your cell phone. It has no rights.

What?
Citizens carry and make cell phone calls. Citizens are ( or in this case should be ) protected from unreasonable searches.

 

[shrubber]

However, there is no law or amendment protecting your cell phone. Given that the techonology exists, authorities can absolutely track your cell phone. It has no rights.

Is there a law that protects my privacy?