Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’

BudMcLovin

BudMcLovin

Active Member
You have got to read this.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10GwocAiu
"The Obama administration has urged a federal appeals court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects’ vehicles to track their every move.

The Justice Department is demanding a federal appeals court rehear a case in which it reversed the conviction and life sentence of a cocaine dealer whose vehicle was tracked via GPS for a month, without a court warrant. The authorities then obtained warrants to search and find drugs in the locations where defendant Antoine Jones had travelled."

Now that's some bullshit.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i heard about this a while back, they put a tracking device on the dude's car without a warrant AND in his own driveway no less. if i remember correct, they argued he did not have reasonable right to privacy in his own driveway because it wasn't fenced and playing kids or paper carriers might pass through as well....i guess we all need expensive fences to have a reasonable expectation to privacy in our own driveway or yard. that is some bullshit...

have o hit the stores before they close, but will be back to read more about the decision and comment.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
the justice department wants the supreme court to decide this. not because obama now wants to gps your car.

the justice department, and law enforcement around the country, probably have hundreds, if not thousands of cases, where this type of evidence is being used.

they want to make sure it's legal. if not they may be wasting thousands of man hours costing millions of dollars....

it's only prudent to make sure their investigations, and the cases that arise, are admissible in court.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
If the supreme court OKs the use of GPS, then I will invent an ANTI-GPS device that will render the POS Useless. I might even make some money.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
the justice department wants the supreme court to decide this. not because obama now wants to gps your car.
the justice department, and law enforcement around the country, probably have hundreds, if not thousands of cases, where this type of evidence is being used.
they want to make sure it's legal. if not they may be wasting thousands of man hours costing millions of dollars....
it's only prudent to make sure their investigations, and the cases that arise, are admissible in court.
Click to expand...
do you ever get tired of playing the apologist for this administration? if this had happened under our last president you'd be screaming about fascist tactics and the trashing of our rights, but the messiah's administration seems to get every chance in your book. what is it going to take for you to see the bumbling neophyte in the oval office and the rest of his cronies for what they really are? brain-dead control freaks with a penchant for perverting the essence of the constitution, intent on demolishing the very concept of choice.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
undertheice said:
do you ever get tired of playing the apologist for this administration?
Click to expand...
do you ever get tired of finding any reason you can to shit on this administration for things completely beyond their control?

i knew the OP was another example of admitted glenn beck aficionado budmclovin blurring the facts, just as his hero would do. while this shows bud is capable of learning, at least in a rudimentary monkey-see monkey-do type of way, it speaks very badly about his ability to do a little research...

this was decided by a three judge panel on the ninth circuit. a larger group of judges let it stand after being asked to reconsider. none of those judges, as in zero, were obama appointees. this will quickly make its way to the us court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, who will likely make the opposite decision in favor of privacy. from there it is onto the supreme court, where the two judges obama did appoint will more than likely rule on the side of pro-privacy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2

thus, undertheice, you have been bamboozled.

do you ever get tired of being wrong?

edit - it looks like we are talking about two different cases one of which has not made it to the dc circuit yet....in any case, it is all out of obama's hands and in the hands of the court systems alone. th only thing obama has control over there are the judges he appoints, and both are likely to be on the side of pro-privacy when/if this makes it to the supreme court.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
well, it seems that being reasonable and logical is the same as being an apologist.

i am not apologizing for anybody, because there is nothing to apologize about.

it's really the only course of action left to district attorneys and attorney generals in this country. no really. there's nothing else to do. they have to take it up to the supreme court so they set a precedent.

there might be thousands of cases which may need to be retried.

i don't consider attorney's general openly appealing the decisions made in court, following the letter and spirit of the laws of the states, as well as the laws of the Federal Government some sort of fascist tactic. i also don't see it as an attack on our civil rights. actually, the purpose of this case will be to BETTER DEFINE OUR CIVIL RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALS.

i consider attorney's general writing up secret memo's authorizing the unwarranted tapping of hundreds of thousands of american citizens' phones in direct contradiction of the constitution under the cloak of national security a fascist tactic. that's what the last republican white house, the BUSH white house did.

i also think it's awesome you're trying to somehow tarnish the administration's civil right's record. when just this week REPUBLICANS filibustered THIS ADMINISTRATION'S DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL, which would've given gays the right to openly serve in the military.

but no. watch out for obama. his white house is out to deny citizen's rights.....
:roll:
 
W

Wordz

Well-Known Member
I'm interested in this because of the cases where people have gone to jail for video taping the police. [video=youtube;UK3u-C__4T8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK3u-C__4T8[/video]
 
april

april

Pickle Queen
i'm sorry dut i i think the ass on the bike should be arrested, what he if caused an accident? killed your mother,father, wife or worse child!! a few days ago i was driving on the 401 (hwy in canada) i was going about 115 km/h some ass on a similar bike as in this video was driving atleast 160km/h , driving like he was on a track, what idiots like him don't realize is by going soo fast they can cause someone to have a serious accident, should have called the police, but i was stupid and did not. I have been in a situation that cost me a car by choice, a drunk guy feel asleep at the wheel,drove over a medium and into oncoming traffic, without thinking i gunned it following him, i hit his car on the drivers side(there was a creek on the side of the road he almost went into) this pushed his car back in the proper lane, then i gunned it again and got in front and let him rear end me to stop the car, the reason i did all this was because i saw the guy tip over into the drivers seat and thought he was in trouble(i thought heart attack, which cost my father his life when i was 9) But when i jumped out and opened the other cars door i saw the beer in the cup holder, then i snapped, dude was sooo drunk he passed out again until the police came. I was driving a 79 park avenue, she was ok just a dent in the passenger door and rear bumper but i never drove her again after that day, his car was done. The cops said i did an amazing thing but i was sooo angry that dude was drunk and i had risked my life 4 him. Anyways i know i rambled alot but my point was i will NEVER hesitate to stop/report retards that put my life at risk .
 
W

Wordz

Well-Known Member
april said:
i'm sorry dut i i think the ass on the bike should be arrested, what he if caused an accident? killed your mother,father, wife or worse child!! a few days ago i was driving on the 401 (hwy in canada) i was going about 115 km/h some ass on a similar bike as in this video was driving atleast 160km/h , driving like he was on a track, what idiots like him don't realize is by going soo fast they can cause someone to have a serious accident, should have called the police, but i was stupid and did not. I have been in a situation that cost me a car by choice, a drunk guy feel asleep at the wheel,drove over a medium and into oncoming traffic, without thinking i gunned it following him, i hit his car on the drivers side(there was a creek on the side of the road he almost went into) this pushed his car back in the proper lane, then i gunned it again and got in front and let him rear end me to stop the car, the reason i did all this was because i saw the guy tip over into the drivers seat and thought he was in trouble(i thought heart attack, which cost my father his life when i was 9) But when i jumped out and opened the other cars door i saw the beer in the cup holder, then i snapped, dude was sooo drunk he passed out again until the police came. I was driving a 79 park avenue, she was ok just a dent in the passenger door and rear bumper but i never drove her again after that day, his car was done. The cops said i did an amazing thing but i was sooo angry that dude was drunk and i had risked my life 4 him. Anyways i know i rambled alot but my point was i will NEVER hesitate to stop/report retards that put my life at risk .
Click to expand...
that's not about him going fast on the highway it's about how his house got raided for posting the video on youtube, knew someone was going to have to talk about how fast he was going lol his speeding didn't get his house raided. geez try listening to the story next time
 
april

april

Pickle Queen
if speed was not a factor then why was he pulled over??? if he was never pulled over , the video would not exist, never been uplaoded, his house would not have been raided, so sorry your Wrong, and how do i listen to something i'm reading??? so the reason it all happened was because he was speeding, weird how it all comes together eh?!.
lol
Its dude's own fault for posting the video. Think about it! lol
(my comments were about the bike video, not the article about the blow dealer in case some people get confused lol, anyways i think anyone that snorts that shit is an idiot,keep it natural people!!!)
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
i think his point is about us having no right to privacy in public whereas its a federal offence to film a police officer in public the incident on the bike was just an example of it
 
BudMcLovin

BudMcLovin

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
i knew the OP was another example of admitted glenn beck aficionado budmclovin blurring the facts, just as his hero would do. while this shows bud is capable of learning, at least in a rudimentary monkey-see monkey-do type of way, it speaks very badly about his ability to do a little research...
Click to expand...
Do you see everything in blue or red? Are you capable of seeing the point of this thread? It’s not about the Obama administration. I simply copied the first few sentences from the article. Did you even bother to read the article? Or did you just assume I was taking a shot at the Obama administration. The President had nothing to do with the decision it just happen under his administration. If it was the Bush administration I would feel the same way. It’s wrong and against the guys rights under the constitution.

Here’s what the judges had to say “Repeated visits to a church, a gym, a bar, or a bookie tell a story not told by any single visit, as does one’s not visiting any of these places over the course of a month. The sequence of a person’s movements can reveal still more; a single trip to a gynecologist’s office tells little about a woman, but that trip followed a few weeks later by a visit to a baby supply store tells a different story.*
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.”

Oh and for the record Beck’s no hero of mine. I just think people like you who continually call people racist and liars just because you don’t like them need to back it up with solid proof. Instead of posting some videos of him saying things you don’t agree with. Think for yourself instead of what the Huffington Post or Media Matters tell you to think. Personal insults don’t prove your point they make it clear you can’t defend your point of view with a rational response.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Wordz said:
I'm interested in this because of the cases where people have gone to jail for video taping the police.
Click to expand...
I have the same question.

Does this ruling mean vigilant citizens don't risk getting the shit kicked out of them for videotaping coppers out in public?
 
BudMcLovin

BudMcLovin

Active Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Does this ruling mean vigilant citizens don't risk getting the shit kicked out of them for videotaping coppers out in public?
Click to expand...
“In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.” Those states are Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

“Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.”

Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

This is about the guy in the video

“Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.”

All quoted from this article. http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

.
 
tinyTURTLE

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
two party consent makes ATM cameras and all traffic cameras and all resturant surveilance illegal.
it's a ridiculous premise. it's tacit admission to corruption. they don't want to be filmed: using excessive force,
intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence and conspiring to commit crimes and whatever the hell else crooked
cops do. and then they wonder why the everage citizen doesn't trust cops.
 
R

Radiate

Well-Known Member
After watching the video of the officer I'm wondering what would've happened to the motorcyclist if he would've just run over the non-identifying officer. That would've been my response to a plainclothes fool pulling a gun on me for sure. He didn't identify himself til later, and he presented no badge or proof he was an officer. How could a person know he's not just some crazy a-hole trying to mug them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top