GPS Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Supreme Court Considers GPS Cases and the Future of Privacy

 
 
Sam Wormley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2011, 06:03 PM
Supreme Court Considers GPS Cases and the Future of Privacy

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...re-of-privacy/

> This case is important because some of the most profound questions relating to privacy in the 21st century turn directly on the handling of the information associated with mobile devices. It is an issue that is complicated because technology and cultural expectations regarding privacy are changing so quickly. The legal landscape related to privacy and mobile devices is complex, contradictory, and evolving.
>


See:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...re-of-privacy/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2011, 09:43 PM

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/10-1259.pdf

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, that seems to get -to me to get to what's really
involved here, the issue of whether there is a technical trespass or
not is potentially a ground for deciding this particular case, but it
seems to me the heart of the problem that's presented by this case and
will be presented by other cases involving new technology is that in
the pre-computer, pre-Internet age much of the privacy -- I would say
most of the privacy -- that people enjoyed was
not the result of legal protections or constitutional protections; it
was the result simply of the difficulty of traveling around and
gathering up information.

But with computers, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of
information about people that consists of things that could have been
observed on the streets, information that was made available to the
public. If -- if this case is decided on the ground that there was a
technical trespass, I don't have much doubt that in the near future it
will be probable -- I think it's possible now in many instances -- for
law enforcement to monitor people's movements on -- on public streets
without committing a technical trespass.

So how do we deal with this? Do we just say, well, nothing is changed,
so that all the information that people expose to the public -- is, is
fair game? There is no -- there is no search or seizure when that is
-- when that is obtained, because there isn't a reasonable expectation
of privacy? But isn't there a real change in -- in this regard?

.. . .

JUSTICE BREYER: But what -- but what is the question that I think
people are driving at, at least as I understand it and certainly share
the concern, is that if you win this case then there is nothing to
prevent the police or the government ffrom monitoring 24 hours a day
the public movement of every citizen of the United States. And -- and
the difference between the monitoring and what happened in the past is
memories are fallible, computers aren't.
And no one, at least very rarely, sends human beings to follow people
24 hours a day. That occasionally happens. But with the machines, you
can. So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 from
their brief.

.. . .

JUSTICE BREYER: . . . Start with the other end. Start, what would a
democratic society look like if a large number of people did think
that the government was tracking their every movement over long
periods of time. And once you reject that, you have to have a reason
under the Fourth Amendment and a principle. And what I'm looking for
is the reason and the principle that would reject that, but wouldn't
also reject 24 hours a day for 28 days. Do you see where I'm -- that's
what I'm listening very hard to find.

.. . .

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The GPS technology today is limited only by the
cost of the instrument, which frankly right now is so small that it
wouldn't take that much of a budget, local budget, to place a GPS on
every car in the nation.

.. . .

JUSTICE ALITO: You know, I don't know what society expects and I think
it's changing. Technology is changing people's expectations of
privacy. Suppose we look forward 10 years, and maybe 10 years from
now 90 percent of the population will be using social networking sites
and they will have on average 500 friends and they will have allowed
their friends to monitor their location 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, through the use of their cell phones. Then -- what would the
expectation of privacy be then?

.. . .

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you have any idea of how many GPS devices are
being used by Federal Government agencies and State law enforcement
officials?

MR. DREEBEN: The Federal Government, I can speak to, and it's in the
low thousands annually. It's not a massive universal use of an
investigative technique. The FBI requires that there be some
reasonable basis for using GPS before it installs it. And as a result,
this is a technique that basically supplements visual surveillance
rather than supplanting it all together.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Mountifield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2011, 09:59 AM
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed M. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/10-1259.pdf
>
> JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The GPS technology today is limited only by the
> cost of the instrument, which frankly right now is so small that it
> wouldn't take that much of a budget, local budget, to place a GPS on
> every car in the nation.


What so many people get confused about is what a GPS unit does.

It is a unit that can know where it is and what the time is, and could
store that data in its own memory. It does NOT automatically send that
information anywhere, and certainly not back via the satellites!

The collection and collation of all that data from every GPS unit is
a MUCH bigger task than just putting a little cheap unit on everything.

Does anyone ever point this out to non-techies?

Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: http://www.gps-forums.net/(E-Mail Removed) - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: (E-Mail Removed) - http://tony.mountifield.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
macpacheco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2011, 10:39 AM
On Nov 10, 7:59*am, (E-Mail Removed) (Tony Mountifield) wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)..com>,
>
> Ed M. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...nscripts/10-12...

>
> > JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The GPS technology today is limited only by the
> > cost of the instrument, which frankly right now is so small that it
> > wouldn't take that much of a budget, local budget, to place a GPS on
> > every car in the nation.

>
> What so many people get confused about is what a GPS unit does.
>
> It is a unit that can know where it is and what the time is, and could
> store that data in its own memory. It does NOT automatically send that
> information anywhere, and certainly not back via the satellites!
>
> The collection and collation of all that data from every GPS unit is
> a MUCH bigger task than just putting a little cheap unit on everything.
>
> Does anyone ever point this out to non-techies?
>
> Cheers
> Tony
> --
> Tony Mountifield
> Work: (E-Mail Removed) -http://www.softins.co.uk
> Play: (E-Mail Removed) -http://tony.mountifield.org


1 - is it acceptable for law enforcement to attach a monitoring device
to your property without a warrant. For instance in the future if
there are cameras capable of reading license plates all over the place
and software capable of doing that OCR automatically, that can't be
considered illegal.

2 - The other question is really about not creating a perception that
someone might be a criminal because he's under surveillance. That's
the biggest problem if item 1 is considered acceptable by the US
supreme court.

Serious people that have no concerns with having committed any crimes
might say its a good thing police can investigate people more
efficiently. There should be at least an internal audit of usage of
such devices, done at say 20% sampling, to avoid overzealous cops
annoying people too much.

Of course, I'd say first and foremost, high profile politicians should
be the most frequently target, just to try to keep them honest.

That would be specially good in high political corruption places like
Brazil or Italy, where we desperately need to weed out the majority of
the politicians ASAP !
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2011, 08:30 PM
On 2011-11-10 06:26 , Mike Coon wrote:
> macpacheco wrote:
>> 1 - is it acceptable for law enforcement to attach a monitoring device
>> to your property without a warrant. For instance in the future if
>> there are cameras capable of reading license plates all over the place
>> and software capable of doing that OCR automatically, that can't be
>> considered illegal.
>>
>> 2 - The other question is really about not creating a perception that
>> someone might be a criminal because he's under surveillance. That's
>> the biggest problem if item 1 is considered acceptable by the US
>> supreme court.

>
> I don't see the connection between "connecting a monitoring device to your
> property" and having monitoring cameras. In the UK the latter, complete with
> OCR, is very common, especially in most police patrol cars. There is also a


There is a huge difference between spot sampling of cars for automobile
violations and tracking your every move 24/7 over days/weeks/months.

IMO, and I hope the USSC comes to the same conclusion, it constitutes
unreasonable search and should require a warrant. As one of the judges
said it opens the door to all vehicles being tracked at all times for
the convenience of the police.

I'm in Canada - I just hope that similar surveillance requires a warrant
(I don't really know if it does).


> link to the registration database which keeps data on licensing and
> insurance for both driver and vehicle, and whether vehicles have any
> necessary test certificate. Any transgression and the vehicle is liable to
> be stopped. Drivers who are lax over such rules are also likely to be using
> drink or drugs or other illegal activity. This all seems reasonable to me.


Here the police have it completely automated - they sit by the side of
the road and the cameras read plates, the data is sent to a database
system automatically and if there is an issue it is flagged back. Takes
a couple seconds. If a car does not have its reg paid up, or the
registered owner's license has issues, then that cop just signals a cop
car down the road to wave him over.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Coon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2011, 09:36 PM
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2011-11-10 06:26 , Mike Coon wrote:
>> I don't see the connection between "connecting a monitoring device
>> to your property" and having monitoring cameras. In the UK the
>> latter, complete with OCR, is very common, especially in most police
>> patrol cars. There is also a

>
> There is a huge difference between spot sampling of cars for
> automobile violations and tracking your every move 24/7 over
> days/weeks/months. I'm in Canada - I just hope that similar surveillance
> requires a
> warrant (I don't really know if it does).


One would hope so, like a phone tap. (?)

> Here the police have it completely automated - they sit by the side of
> the road and the cameras read plates, the data is sent to a database
> system automatically and if there is an issue it is flagged back. Takes a
> couple seconds. If a car does not have its reg paid up, or
> the registered owner's license has issues, then that cop just signals
> a cop car down the road to wave him over.


That's how it works in the UK. There is similar technology for tracking
average speed on motorways by checking when vehicles pass fixed unmanned
cameras.

Mike.
--
If reply address is Mike@@mjcoon.+.com (invalid), remove spurious "@"
and substitute "plus" for +.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2011, 02:50 AM
On Nov 10, 1:59 am, (E-Mail Removed) (Tony Mountifield) wrote:
>
> > JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The GPS technology today is limited only by the
> > cost of the instrument, which frankly right now is so small that it
> > wouldn't take that much of a budget, local budget, to place a GPS on
> > every car in the nation.

>
> What so many people get confused about is what a GPS unit does.
>
> It is a unit that can know where it is and what the time is, and could
> store that data in its own memory. It does NOT automatically send that
> information anywhere, and certainly not back via the satellites!
>
> The collection and collation of all that data from every GPS unit is
> a MUCH bigger task than just putting a little cheap unit on everything.
>
> Does anyone ever point this out to non-techies?
>
> Cheers
> Tony
> --
> Tony Mountifield
> Work: (E-Mail Removed) -http://www.softins.co.uk
> Play: (E-Mail Removed) -http://tony.mountifield.org


Haven't found a description of the actual GPS device attached to
Antoine Jones's Jeep. Since it was there for several weeks, it was
likely a data logger, as Tony suggests.

But there are other devices used by police that transmit data.
Obviously they will have short battery life, or need to be attached to
a vehicle's electrical system.

From the US District Court case that preceded the Supreme Court case:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...010/09/gps.pdf

"This case itself illustrates how the sequence of a person's movements
may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed.
Having tracked Jones's movements for a month, the Government used the
resulting pattern -- not just the location of a particular 'stash
house' or Jones's movements on any one trip or even day -- as evidence
of Jones's involvement in the cocaine trafficking business. The
pattern the Government would
document with the GPS data was central to its presentation of the
case, as the prosecutor made clear in his opening statement:

'[T]he agents and investigators obtained an additional order and that
was to install a GPS. ... They had to figure out where is he going?
When he says ten minutes, where is he going? Again, the pattern
developed. ... And I want to ... just show you an example of how the
pattern worked. ... The meetings are short. But you will again notice
the pattern you will see in the coming weeks over and over again.' "

"We note without surprise, therefore, that the Legislature of
California, in making it unlawful for anyone but a law
enforcement agency to 'use an electronic tracking device to determine
the location or movement of a person,' specifically declared
'electronic tracking of a person's location without that person's
knowledge violates that person's reasonable expectation of privacy,'
and implicitly but necessarily thereby required a warrant for police
use of a GPS, California Penal Code section 637.7, Stats. 1998 c. 449
(S.B. 1667) § 2."

"Continuous human surveillance for a week would require all the time
and expense of several police officers, while comparable photographic
surveillance would require a net of video cameras so dense and so
widespread as to catch a person's every movement, plus the manpower to
piece the photographs together. Of course, as this case and
some of the GPS cases in other courts illustrate, prolonged GPS
monitoring is not similarly constrained. On the contrary, the marginal
cost of an additional day -- or week, or month -- of GPS monitoring is
effectively zero. Nor, apparently, is the fixed cost of installing a
GPS device significant; the Los Angeles Police Department can now
affix a GPS device to a passing car simply by launching a GPS-enabled
dart.* For these practical reasons, and not by virtue of its
sophistication or novelty, the advent of GPS technology has occasioned
a heretofore unknown type of intrusion into an ordinarily and hitherto
private enclave.

* The darts consist of a miniaturized GPS receiver, radio transmitter,
and battery embedded in a sticky compound material. When fired at a
vehicle, the compound adheres to the target, and thereafter permits
remote real-time tracking of the target from police headquarters.||
Renee McDonald Hutchins, Tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the
Fourth Amendment, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 409, 419 (2007); see also Richard
Winton, LAPD Pursues High-Tech End to High-Speed Chases, L.A. Times,
Feb. 3, 2006, at B1. GPS darts are used in exigent circumstances and
for only as long as it takes to interdict the subject driver without
having to engage in a high-speed chase on a public way."

The two references in the footnote:

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-2-3.pdf

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb...al/me-bratton3

The StarChase web site:

https://www.starchase.com/products.html

http://www.starchase.com/how-it-workss/faq.html

This one mentions a lot of options in configuration and control:

http://www.starchase.com/news/18/54/...G-PRODUCT.html

The company apparently got some grant money to develop these products:

http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2011...d-like-device/

A very loosely related topic in Bruce Schneier's blog:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...ne_surv_1.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
macpacheco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2011, 09:07 AM
On Nov 11, 12:50*am, "Ed M." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Haven't found a description of the actual GPS device attached to
> Antoine Jones's Jeep. *Since it was there for several weeks, it was
> likely a data logger, as Tony suggests.
>
> But there are other devices used by police that transmit data.
> Obviously they will have short battery life, or need to be attached to
> a vehicle's electrical system.


There are devices that store data and transmit hourly updates (perhaps
with once a minute positions).
That avoids 99% of the power cost of a full time cell network
connection, power up the cell connection, lock a signal, transmit,
shutdown for an hour. With good cell signal this can be done in as
little as 10 seconds. Also, the device can use a very basic low rate
CDMA or GPRS connection (around 13kbps speed), that's enough to send
hundreds of data points in just a few seconds of actual connection
time.
Most of the battery budget is the GPS receiver plus the data
collection stuff.

Marcelo Pacheco
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2011, 03:06 PM
On 2011-11-10 04:59 , Tony Mountifield wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ed M.<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/10-1259.pdf
>>
>> JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The GPS technology today is limited only by the
>> cost of the instrument, which frankly right now is so small that it
>> wouldn't take that much of a budget, local budget, to place a GPS on
>> every car in the nation.

>
> What so many people get confused about is what a GPS unit does.
>
> It is a unit that can know where it is and what the time is, and could
> store that data in its own memory. It does NOT automatically send that
> information anywhere, and certainly not back via the satellites!
>
> The collection and collation of all that data from every GPS unit is
> a MUCH bigger task than just putting a little cheap unit on everything.
>
> Does anyone ever point this out to non-techies?


There are GPS surveillance units that use SMS and other cellular
networks to transmit the "tracked" vehicle data back to the device owner.

The real issue is keeping the batteries charged or replaced (which is
also an opportunity to switch units and recover data if it is only a
logger).

A sharp system could be connected to the vehicle electrical system in
some manner if the cops have a way to get at it surreptitiously. Then
it could send position reports or reduced logs at some constant rate
virtually forever.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misstatement about GPS surveillance, in our US Supreme Court John Doe General GPS Discussion 0 11-11-2011 03:08 AM
test cases for testing a gps matlab model GPS Baseband Global Navigation Satellite Systems 3 04-09-2008 04:24 PM
U.S. DOT Considers Future of National Differential GPS Sam Wormley General GPS Discussion 0 08-04-2007 07:06 AM
U.S. DOT Considers Future of National Differential GPS Sam Wormley Global Navigation Satellite Systems 0 08-04-2007 07:05 AM
Cases radars fixes grisées ! Tutu@plus TomTom GPS 1 07-19-2007 04:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 AM.