Unanimous. However, there is a split on grounds.

“We hold that the government’s installation of a G.P.S. device on
a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the
vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’ ” Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia
Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us...l.html?_r=1&hp

But, there's room for wiggle to come:

“We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking
of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed
before the 4-week mark,” Justice Alito wrote. “Other cases may
present more difficult questions.”

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

The opinion (34 pages):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

On 1/23/12 1:39 PM, Ed M. wrote:
> The opinion (34 pages):
>
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
>

But doesn't necessarily apply to security firms, private
detectives and other NGOs.

On 2012-01-23 15:19 , Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/23/12 1:39 PM, Ed M. wrote:
>> The opinion (34 pages):
>>
>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
>>
>
> But doesn't necessarily apply to security firms, private
> detectives and other NGOs.

They cannot take you to court on a criminal matter.

And the degree to which they could use the data in a civil matter is
pretty murky.

Would it be akin to recording a conversation in a private residence or a
place where there is the expectation of privacy?


--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:19:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/23/12 1:39 PM, Ed M. wrote:
>> The opinion (34 pages):
>>
>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
>>
>
> But doesn't necessarily apply to security firms, private
> detectives and other NGOs.

Nope. For those, normal laws about trespass and vandalism would apply.
And those firms generally cannot be used to gather evidence for criminal
prosecution, only for civil purposes. Civil's a whole different set of
rules.

--
89. After I capture the hero's superweapon, I will not immediately
disband my legions and relax my guard because I believe whoever
holds the weapon is unstoppable. After all, the hero held the
weapon and I took it from him. --Anspach's Evil Overlord list

On 1/23/12 12:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> Unanimous. However, there is a split on grounds.
>
> “We hold that the government’s installation of a G.P.S. device on
> a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the
> vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’ ” Justice Antonin
> Scalia wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
> and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia
> Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us...l.html?_r=1&hp
>
>
> But, there's room for wiggle to come:
>
> “We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking
> of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed
> before the 4-week mark,” Justice Alito wrote. “Other cases may
> present more difficult questions.”
>

Interesting article.

Why the Supreme Court GPS Decision Won't Stop Warrantless Digital
Surveillance

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...reme-court-gps

On 2012-01-25 22:29 , Sam Wormley wrote:

> Why the Supreme Court GPS Decision Won't Stop Warrantless Digital
> Surveillance
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...reme-court-gps

A good article at raising the issues.

1) Except that the people being tracked in the case the SC weighed on
were (alleged) criminals who are somewhat aware that they leave digital
trails. eg:

- use cash for most transactions: no purchase/location trail.

- use cash for prepaid cell phones and to top up - no connection to a
person's identity.

- use other peoples vehicles to prevent/confuse license plate based tracking

- while cameras can record our faces, connecting that to a person is
another matter (though face recognition has gone prime time now, so it's
a good point). One could use simple disguises, however.

2) To the extent that we are innocently leaving a detailed trace of
activities behind, the authorities will also be compelled to get
warrants to access that data as it is generally the case now. For
example, if the state wanted to access your ISP records about the
posting you just made, they would need a court order to do so. (Check
the TOS of your ISP).

(I'm a SA subscriber, but I find many of their articles/issues to be
very polarized).

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Let's Hear It for the Supremes!
by Alan Cameron
http://www.gpsworld.com/GNSS%20Syste...supremes-12530

> Last week’s Supreme Court ruling on GPS use for tracking criminal suspects makes U.S. law clear on this issue going forward, but it does not address tracking for commercial aspects. One U.S. newspaper editorialized, “the unanimous decision failed to resolve troubling questions about the privacy rights of Americans in the face of intrusive modern surveillance technology.” The privacy picture in other large markets — Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, and elsewhere — remains even less clear. If GNSS should be perceived as a tool of Big Brother (government) or Big Broker (industry selling and buying consumer location data), then all navigation systems acquire a big PR problem, which translates into big funding and modernization problems.

See:: http://www.gpsworld.com/GNSS%20Syste...supremes-12530

On 2012-01-28 17:51 , Sam Wormley wrote:
> Let's Hear It for the Supremes!
> by Alan Cameron
> http://www.gpsworld.com/GNSS%20Syste...supremes-12530
>
>> Last week’s Supreme Court ruling on GPS use for tracking criminal
>> suspects makes U.S. law clear on this issue going forward, but it does
>> not address tracking for commercial aspects. One U.S. newspaper
>> editorialized, “the unanimous decision failed to resolve troubling
>> questions about the privacy rights of Americans in the face of
>> intrusive modern surveillance technology.” The privacy picture in
>> other large markets — Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, and
>> elsewhere — remains even less clear. If GNSS should be perceived as a
>> tool of Big Brother (government) or Big Broker (industry selling and
>> buying consumer location data), then all navigation systems acquire a
>> big PR problem, which translates into big funding and modernization
>> problems.
>
> See:: http://www.gpsworld.com/GNSS%20Syste...supremes-12530

Thanks, interesting.

Perhaps we're (I am, anyway) more sensitive to intrusion on privacy by
the state.

It is true that with the internet, social networks, multi-national
company marketing methods, Google ... well everything (including their
recent changes to their policies on information sharing between their
many "services"), that non government invasion of privacy can have
important effect - if not of the same flavour as those formerly abused
by governments.

I believe that most European governments (not all) will be more
sensitive to privacy invasion. Countries like Germany are especially
unforgiving, a vestige of the post WW-II era.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).