Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday October 12 2018, @12:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the think-different dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Unixnut on Friday October 12 2018, @04:12PM (3 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Friday October 12 2018, @04:12PM (#747954)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @05:54PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @05:54PM (#747984)

    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

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 12 2018, @06:25PM (#747996) Journal

      People generally would tend to agree with you because they value their freedom and don't want . . . . . . . what? . . . . . . . looook! . . . . . . A shiny! Over there!

      --
      The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @08:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @08:50PM (#748029)

    good luck finding a way to disable it, the way car electronics are integrated nowadays

    GPS signals are weak, and contact is often lost in normal operation, so disconnect the antenna.