SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A top Homeland Security Investigations official has told a federal court that it remains the agency's policy that officers can install a GPS tracking device on cars entering the United States "without a warrant or individualized suspicion" for up to 48 hours.
There is no such time limit, HSI Assistant Director Matthew C. Allen also told the court, for putting such trackers on "airplane, commercial vehicles, and semi-tractor trailers, which has a significantly reduced expectation of privacy in the location of their vehicles."
Such an assertion comes over a month after a federal judge recently told the Department of Justice that such a practice—at least in one drug-trafficking case—is unconstitutional. His decision is based on a landmark 2012 Supreme Court ruling involving GPS tracking, known as Jones.
Prosecutors had claimed that installing such a tracker was valid under the "border doctrine" exception to the Fourth Amendment, which finds that limited, warrantless searches at the border are allowed. US District Judge Jesus G. Bernal disagreed in an August 24, 2018 ruling.
Allen continued, saying that HSI believes that its policy is "consistent" with both the Jones decision and a case from 2004 case known as Flores-Montano. In that instance, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a "diminished" expectation of privacy at the border.
Legal experts find this newly disclosed HSI policy to be troubling.
"It is hard to square with the [Supreme] Court's decision in Jones," wrote Michael Price, an attorney with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in an email to Ars.
[...] Government lawyers have asked Judge Bernal to amend his August 24 order simply to include that the FBI agent and Los Angeles Police Department officer involved in the arrest should not be reprimanded for what turned out to be bad legal advice.
On Friday, Steven Gruel and Marilyn Bednarski, attorneys for the defendants, filed a motion to the court, arguing against the government's position.
"If the federal government does in fact have such a policy and is training law enforcement agents to act as the policy suggests, which is a violation of the 4th amendment, the government should be deterred and the agencies' internal policies and training should be revealed and scrutinized," they wrote.
The two sides will be back in court on November 5 at 2pm to discuss the matter.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday October 12 2018, @12:26PM (9 children)
is probably stealing from the government?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Friday October 12 2018, @01:57PM (1 child)
> is probably stealing from the government?
I suspect it's also "interfering with a federal investigation" or something like that, which is probably way more serious.
Need to find a way to "accidentally" get rid of it, or just get rid of the car.
Or, if you are the sort of person who has legitimate reasons for checking your car for attached devices, then call the bomb squad - just remember to duck when they start an inter-agency argument with the feds...
Note: this actually sort of thing actually happens e.g. read http://home.bt.com/news/odd-news/suspect-device-in-mans-car-sparks-bomb-alert-until-wife-admits-planting-gps-tracker-11364068421228 [bt.com] and tell me you think the guy honestly didn't have any idea it was a tracker and honestly didn't decide that the best way to get back at the woman who planted it was a bomb squad call...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday October 12 2018, @06:44PM
I don't know if he intentionally mistook it for a bomb, or honestly mistook it for a bomb, but the latter option is certainly plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 12 2018, @03:59PM (6 children)
Solution: require the GPS trackers to be built in to cars.
Do it under the guise of requiring all cars to have in car navigation.
You get economy of scale. But of course consumers won't see any of that cost effectiveness.
You get extra profit from navigation map updates if consumers opt to get those.
The government can track every car on the road.
While we're at it, also have a remote kill switch that even the lowliest law enforcement officer can use arbitrarily and maliciously.
Because of the size of the US market, auto manufacturers may find it easier and cheaper to simply build the GPS trackers into all autos. Something I'm sure all governments would welcome. For your safety, of course. Think of the children!
What's not to like? Everybody wins! (or so the sheeple think)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Unixnut on Friday October 12 2018, @04:12PM (3 children)
The EU is (of course) ahead in that department. They mandated that all cars since 2015 have a GPS tracker and cell phone link built into the vehicles. The official, public reason for this is to be able to have a car automatically send details+location to the authorities in the event of a collision, so the emergency services can be dispatched quickly to the scene.
Of course, the end user has no way of knowing if this is all the system does, when location tracking is enabled, or when it is disabled (and good luck finding a way to disable it, the way car electronics are integrated nowadays).
Considering that benefits of standardisation and economies of scale, I would be surprised if EU car manufacturers ripped out the units just for the US market. So in theory, if you have a car from an EU manufacturer built after 2015, it is already set up for tracking. Just a matter of flipping a (software) switch.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @05:54PM (1 child)
GM's OnStar is the biggest unsure if it or Mercedes might are the longest. Following that is BMW, Honda and Toyota, Ford, and I unsure of the status of other companies. At least until recently Hyundai had very little excess electronics in the majority of their cars, with the exceptions of brand leaders like the Genesis series.
We are long past the point where the little people need to foment revolution against both the car dealers and their respective governments. Privacy needs to be a right, not a privilege, and until people start treating it as such things are only going to get worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 12 2018, @06:25PM
People generally would tend to agree with you because they value their freedom and don't want . . . . . . . what? . . . . . . . looook! . . . . . . A shiny! Over there!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @08:50PM
GPS signals are weak, and contact is often lost in normal operation, so disconnect the antenna.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 12 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
Ever heard of On Star ?
Standard on all GM cars.
Many luxury brands have the equivalent.
And the cheaper ones phone home when you use their apps and connect to the car via Bluetooth. (that last one may or may not have remote kill switches ... yet)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Friday October 12 2018, @07:06PM
Yes, I have heard of them, but from what I know:
(a) They are not mandated by government, meaning it is your choice to have it (and disable it)
(b) It can be disabled, even using simple tricks like cutting the antenna and tying it to ground with a resistor. On the EU cars it is integrated with the nav GPS system, so you do that, you lose the GPS. That is assuming the car doesn't detect the lack of a data/GPS signal and go into some kind of "limp home" mode until you get it serviced.
As far as I know OnStar never became fully integrated into the cars systems, so you can (legally and technically) rip it out and still have the car work as before. I am not sure about the legal situation in the EU about removing something that is mandated to be in the car by law/regulation.
But then, the newest car in my family/friend circle is from 2003 (and lacking in such "features" or always-on connectivity), so none of this really affects me (and as things stand, I would probably sooner take up motorcycling than buy anything newer).