Justice Dept spies on millions of cars

[Little-Acorn]

Big Brother is, at last, watching you.

Some say that the Orwellian world where the government is looking through every crack, window, and TV set to keep track of you, just in case you are doing something wrong, never happened. It was fiction, was it not?

Turns out, Orwell got the date wrong, but not the agenda. And government is catching up rapidly.

The DOJ has been keeping millions of records in a huge database, of where people drove their cars, and when. The initial purpose was to keep track of possible drug dealers and transporters.

But the use of that database has been expanding to other government agencies having nothing to do with the drug trade.

And there is no sign the expansion of government intrusion into more and more of our formerly-private lives, is abating.

And the 4th amendment, which requires them to get a warrant from a judge to do so, and to present Probable Cause for believing you are breaking the law before getting that warrant, is nowhere to be found any more.

If you thought the government phone-spying scandal, where govt keeps track of data on millions (trillions?) of phone calls (again without the required warrant) was big, that's nothing compared to this one.

The trend is unmistakable.

Aren't you GLAD you voted for Big Government?

-----------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-spies-millions-cars-wsj-005649040.html

Justice Department spies on millions of cars: WSJ

Reuters
15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department has been secretly gathering and storing hundreds of millions of records about motorists in an effort to build a national database that tracks the movement of vehicles across the country, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The newspaper said the main aim of the license plate tracking program run by the Drug Enforcement Administration was to seize automobiles, money and other assets to fight drug trafficking, according to one government document.

But the use of the database had expanded to include hunting for vehicles linked to other possible crimes, including kidnapping, killings and rape suspects, the paper said, citing current and former officials and government documents.

While U.S. officials have said they track vehicles near the Mexican border to combat drug cartels, it had not been previously revealed the DEA had been working to expand the database "throughout the United States," the Journal said, citing an email.

It said many state and local law enforcement agencies were using the database for a variety of investigations, the paper said.

It added it was unclear if any court oversaw or approved the program.

[revelarts]

Well Acorn if it's all to catch the bad guys then what's the problem?

If you're doing nothing wrong then whats the problem?

I feel safer at night knowing that the DOJ is trying to take scumbags off the streets...

What's your solution? A bouquet flowers with a box of fluffy kittens?

we have to actively track them before they can execute their plots. You're just railing against the only possible course of action...

I'm not sure why you're hung up on warrantless tracking, Acorn. It's just a tool...

That's the job of our DOJ - to protect this country....

And I think what you're losing sight of is the fact that all the 'innocents' immediately surrounding the targets are guilty by association...

The problem here seems to be that many are willing to overlook the fact thousands of Americans are murdered in cold blood by drug dealers and murders and kidnappers...

Well, Acorn, I think it's safe to say that the warrantless tracking will continue until the residents of a targeted area rise up and remove the offending criminals from their midst....

They are somewhere planning and trying to kill people, here on our soil, I have ZERO problems with these criminal scum being killed...um i mean tracked secretly without warrants by the DOJ and other federal and state agencies...

If they never killed a single person themselves, and not currently a threat - from what I'm reading I suppose we should let them continue on their ways untracked unless we get a "warrant". So now criminal leaders need only lead, just don't kill or deal drugs with their own hands and you're free to go....

Look I'm pro constitution and all but these drug dealers and murderers and various criminals don't get the privileges of constitutional rights... it's different. if you can't see that i'm sorry for you.

Acorn! why don't worry about the VICTIMS FOR CHANGE!!!! instead of scum bag criminal animals HUH?!?!

Acorn while you make a good point from time to time you've gone to far here.
The DOJ, gov't agencies and the police 99.9% of the time have a good reason to track people. Less than 1% of the time they make a mistake. And never do they just track monitor or harass people for fun, racial or political reasons. (except that Scum bag OBAMA and the IRS!!) the police and DOJ always have a a good reason for everything (except HOLDER and FASt and Furious and everything) ,
I can see now that you're just ANTI-POLICE.
That's the ONLY REASON why you'd questions this activity Acorn.

I'd like to see you live a few days without them tracking these criminals Acorn, are YOU going to take these criminals off the streets?

And the beat goes on...
Constitution was once the rage A hunh!.... history has turned the page A hunh!!
Govt surveillance is the new thing A hunnh!... the killer drone is now the king Ahunh!
lade dade dee lade dade Daaa

[fj1200]

And the 4th amendment, which requires them to get a warrant from a judge to do so, and to present Probable Cause for believing you are breaking the law before getting that warrant, is nowhere to be found any more.

The 4th doesn't apply. You have no expectation of privacy driving down the road.

[hjmick]

The 4th doesn't apply. You have no expectation of privacy driving down the road.


Doesn't make it any more palatable...

[aboutime]

Why should anyone be surprised with this kind of news?

If we all remember how the govt. already controls our lives. Maybe you'll get a hint with the words:

"DRIVERS LICENSE"???

Everything we do in our life has a number attached that gives us Permission...from a govt. agency, to live here.

Let's just begin with the number on your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and, let's not forget the SOCIAL SECURITY NR.

Any more hints needed?

[revelarts]

The 4th doesn't apply. You have no expectation of privacy driving down the road.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-warrants-needed-in-gps-tracking/2012/01/23/gIQAx7qGLQ_story.html

By Robert Barnes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/robert-barnes) January 23, 2012

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restricted the police’s ability to use a GPS device to track criminal suspects in a first test of how privacy rights will be protected in the digital age.<article>The court rejected the government’s view that long-term surveillance of a suspect by GPS tracking is no different than traditional, low-tech forms of monitoring. But its decision was nuanced and incremental, leaving open the larger questions of how government may use the information generated by modern technology for surveillance purposes. Still, the decision reversing the conviction of suspected D.C. drug kingpin Antoine Jones was a “landmark ruling in applying the Fourth Amendment’s protections to advances in surveillance technology,” said Washington lawyer Andrew Pincus, who filed a brief on Jones’s behalf.....


But....

"DOJ Still Arguing It Doesn't Need Warrant To Track You With GPS"

http://mashable.com/2013/03/19/doj-warrant-tracking-gps/
March 2013

"A new appellate case could further clarify just when the government is required to get a warrant before tracking suspects with GPS technology.It's been more than a year since a Supreme Court decision (http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-gps/) established that affixing a GPS (http://mashable.com/category/gps/)tracking device to a vehicle constitutes a "search" under the constitution.In the now-famous U.S. v. Jones case of 2011, the Supreme Court ruled (PDF (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf)) tracking via GPS was to be considered a "search," in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The caveat in the decision — which some dubbed as the most important Fourth Amendment case of the computer age — is that the justices stopped short of clearly saying that the feds always need a warrant when "searching" you with a GPS tracker..."



OCTOBER 2013


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/third-circuit-agrees-eff-warrant-required-track-car-gps
BY HANNI FAKHOURY (https://www.eff.org/about/staff/hanni-fakhoury)



Third Circuit Agrees With EFF: Warrant Required to Track a Car With GPS
You might think that if the US Supreme Court's ruling that a GPS device was a "search," the inevitable conclusion is that police would need a warrant to install a GPS device on a car. After all, warrantless searches are per se (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=389+U.S.+347&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&case=9210492700696416594&scilh=0) unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (except in few limited exceptions), so the absence of a warrant would make the search unconstitutional.

The government attorneys arguing United States v. Katzin (https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-katzin) must not have gotten that memo. But now, in an important new decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (https://www.eff.org/document/katzin-opinion) that, indeed, police need to get a probable cause search warrant in order to install and track a car's location with a GPS device....


And this...




</article>
CAN THE POLICE TRACK YOUR PHONE’S LOCATION WITHOUT A WARRANT? COURT RULING SAYS NO
By Christian Brazil Bautista (http://www.digitaltrends.com/users/cbautista/)— <time datetime="2014-06-12T13:31:02+00:00" pubdate="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;">June 12, 2014
</time>
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/can-cops-legally-fire-gps-bullets-at-fleeing-cars-to-track-suspects/
"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, issued a ruling that essentially requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before tracking the location of cell phones. The decision may be used in similar cases across the country, thereby challenging the practice of tracking the physical location of suspects through cell phone towers without a warrant. Privacy advocates hailed the ruling as a Fourth Amendment victory.....Jennifer Granick, the Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, echoed the ACLU’s praise of the judgment..... “The opinion, United States v. Davis, is both welcome and overdue. Defendants who have and will be physically tracked without a warrant have new legal support to challenge that surveillance. Additionally, because the case involved stored cell site data, Davis undermines the government’s legal arguments that other warrantless ‘metadata’ collection practices are constitutional,” she said in a blog post (http://justsecurity.org/11520/eleventh-circuit-warrantless-cell-tracking-calls-metadata-programs-question/).



So no it's really not legal to ASSUME authorities have the right to electronically track MILLIONS of people willy nilly without warrant.

There NO REASONABLE expectation for LEO's to assume they have the right to anything NOT GRANTED them in the constitution.
that's the default stance that should be applied instead of assuming the benny of the doubt for all their actions when invasive new tech or tools arrives.

[fj1200]

Doesn't make it any more palatable...

Maybe so but that's why laws are passed.


But....

So no it's really not legal to ASSUME authorities have the right to electronically track MILLIONS of people willy nilly without warrant.

There NO REASONABLE expectation for LEO's to assume they have the right to anything NOT GRANTED them in the constitution.
that's the default stance that should be applied instead of assuming the benny of the doubt for all their actions when invasive new tech or tools arrives.

But... those are not in keeping with the fact pattern as presented in the OP; Private property (GPS/phones) vs. use of public roadways.

Tracking is nothing more than a database. Are you suggesting that a warrant should be required to check against a government DNA database for example?

[revelarts]

Maybe so but that's why laws are passed.



But... those are not in keeping with the fact pattern as presented in the OP; Private property (GPS/phones) vs. use of public roadways.

Tracking is nothing more than a database. Are you suggesting that a warrant should be required to check against a government DNA database for example?

"nothing more"?
from the op

...been secretly gathering and storing hundreds of millions of records about motorists in an effort to build a national database that tracks the movement of vehicles across the country, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday....

explainer and reaction from some states over this issue

...The book-sized license plate readers (LPRs) are mounted on police cars, road signs or traffic lights. The images they capture are translated into computer-readable text and compiled into a list of plate numbers, which can run into the millions. Then police compare the numbers against the license plates of stolen cars, drivers wanted on bench warrants or people involved in missing person cases.

Privacy advocates don't object to police using LPRs to catch criminals. But they are concerned about how long police keep the numbers if the plates don't register an initial hit. In many places there are no limits (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf), so police departments keep the pictures—tagged with the date, time, and location of the car—indefinitely.

The backlash against LPRs began in earnest this year, as three more states limited law enforcement use of the systems and in some cases banned private companies from using the systems, for example, to track down cars for repossession. So far, five states limit how the cameras are used, and the American Civil Liberties Union anticipates that at least six other states will debate limits in the upcoming legislative session....


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/11/20/license-plate-readers-spark-privacy-public-safety/3650273/

Yes I'm objecting to the Gov't creating and keeping records of specific innocent citizens movements, on file forever for use at anytime and in any way.

If there's no probable cause what are they keeping it for? Or looking at it for?
If they want to get general traffic patterns they don't need our plate numbers.
It's just another overbearing public surveillance tactic.

SO yes in fact they SHOULD have a warrant to check the database. In fact there should be no DATABASE full of the movements of every individual's road movement. What kind of Orwellian crap is that?

Buutt If you and others insist that the gov't should have access at their finger tips to this tracking database then it should In fact be PUBLICLY available to everyone at no cost. We PAY for the gov't, the system belongs to the people. And if we want to look and see where the mayors been, where the local police go, where Holder went, where the school teacher went, the spouse, the kids, the boss, we should have the SAME free and easy access as the LEO's.
If not, then NO ONE should without warrants. Everyone like fishing right?

fair enough FJ?

[darin]

If I am driving to the store, and FJ decides to follow my car and chart where I go I have no recourse.

As long as the cops are doing things any person could reasonably do without breaking the law it's a non-issue.


But I hate it. But it's legal.

Change the laws.

[fj1200]

"nothing more"?
from the op

explainer and reaction from some states over this issue

Yes I'm objecting to the Gov't creating and keeping records of specific innocent citizens movements, on file forever for use at anytime and in any way.

If there's no probable cause what are they keeping it for? Or looking at it for?
If they want to get general traffic patterns they don't need our plate numbers.
It's just another overbearing public surveillance tactic.

SO yes in fact they SHOULD have a warrant to check the database. In fact there should be no DATABASE full of the movements of every individual's road movement. What kind of Orwellian crap is that?

Buutt If you and others insist that the gov't should have access at their finger tips to this tracking database then it should In fact be PUBLICLY available to everyone at no cost. We PAY for the gov't, the system belongs to the people. And if we want to look and see where the mayors been, where the local police go, where Holder went, where the school teacher went, the spouse, the kids, the boss, we should have the SAME free and easy access as the LEO's.
If not, then NO ONE should without warrants. Everyone like fishing right?

fair enough FJ?

Hold on now! Don't say I say what I don't say please. But let's look at this for what it is; it sucks but it's not unconstitutional. AFAIK the Feds don't get any data but for the States providing it and state law can limit what they do and what they use it for.

[gabosaurus]

I am all in favor of the government maintaining a comprehensive data base on all residents of the U.S. \
If you are on the run from the criminal justice system, the government should be able to do whatever it can to apprehend you. I hope it applies to deadbeat dads who owe child support.

[aboutime]

Since most of you tend to ignore whatever I try to say here. I can still laugh at everyone who

never bothered to respond to my question about READING "1984". Nuff said. Answers are obvious.

[Jeff]

I am all in favor of the government maintaining a comprehensive data base on all residents of the U.S. \
If you are on the run from the criminal justice system, the government should be able to do whatever it can to apprehend you. I hope it applies to deadbeat dads who owe child support.

I agree Gabs, and I also hope it applies to those that owe millions in back taxes but I guess it doesn't seeing as how Sharpton has been a dinner guest at the WH almost a 100 times in the last 6 years :rolleyes:

Seriously though Gabs I am on board with you about deadbeat Dads, children don't ask to be brought into this world, I just feel maybe instead of getting that woman the $100 a week she is owed maybe our Government resources ought to be collecting the millions owed to a country that could sure enough use the money back. And no I don't mean to make light of deadbeat dad's they are pieces of trash in my eyes and always were.

[Little-Acorn]

Well Acorn if it's all to catch the bad guys then what's the problem?

If you're doing nothing wrong then whats the problem?
Thanks for summing up the excuses leftists use for violating the Constitution.

Gets that out of the way....

(yawn)

[revelarts]

...the Feds don't get any data but for the States providing it and state law can limit what they do and what they use it for....

the constitution already limits them or at least it should the court cases i've brought up show the SCOTUS already leans AWAY from LEOs having the "right" to get data willy nilly.
again i say if they can get it so should EVERYONE. if the data is PUBLIC information then it may be fair for the LEOs to have it if not then NO. it's not a privilege that should be granted them WITHOT warrant.
simple. why should we ASSUME LEOs have the right to access here? what in the constitution GRANTS it? this is where the law stands not what deny them access.


If I am driving to the store, and FJ decides to follow my car and chart where I go I have no recourse.
As long as the cops are doing things any person could reasonably do without breaking the law it's a non-issue.
But I hate it. But it's legal.
Change the laws.

I'm not getting what your saying.
the LEOs can get data from Plate readers, "any person" can't reasonably do that.
so the Leos shouldn't either....without warrant.

And last i checked the 4th amendment is still technically the law. Even though everyone takes the constitution as window dressing ... as long as they agree with whoever's breaking it at the time.

It's really sad to see the ease with which we not just accept but want to embrace big brother.
if it catches "dead beat dad's" Gabby really?
Why not gov't cameras IN the house... if it stops child abuse? It MAKES SENSE.

constitution somstitution.. the gov't knows best.

oh well...

[aboutime]

the constitution already limits them or at least it should the court cases i've brought up show the SCOTUS already leans AWAY from LEOs having the "right" to get data willy nilly.
again i say if they can get it so should EVERYONE. if the data is PUBLIC information then it may be fair for the LEOs to have it if not then NO. it's not a privilege that should be granted them WITHOT warrant.
simple. why should we ASSUME LEOs have the right to access here? what in the constitution GRANTS it? this is where the law stands not what deny them access.



I'm not getting what your saying.
the LEOs can get data from Plate readers, "any person" can't reasonably do that.
so the Leos shouldn't either....without warrant.

And last i checked the 4th amendment is still technically the law. Even though everyone takes the constitution as window dressing ... as long as they agree with whoever's breaking it at the time.

It's really sad to see the ease with which we not just accept but want to embrace big brother.
if it catches "dead beat dad's" Gabby really?
Why not gov't cameras IN the house... if it stops child abuse? It MAKES SENSE.

constitution somstitution.. the gov't knows best.

oh well...



Rev. For your information. THE DATA IS ALREADY PUBLIC. Everything you mentioned above is already readily available to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME.

Think I'm full of it? Just type your own address, name, or friends names in GOOGLE.
You can't say NOBODY TOLD YA!

[Jeff]

Rev. For your information. THE DATA IS ALREADY PUBLIC. Everything you mentioned above is already readily available to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME.

Think I'm full of it? Just type your own address, name, or friends names in GOOGLE.
You can't say NOBODY TOLD YA!

WOW, yes it works, I typed in my own address and it gave me a description of my house, how much land I have and the approximate value of it, heck I now remember how many acres I own exactly :laugh:

[jimnyc]

I take no issue with this at all. Those that do need to work to change the laws instead of whining incessantly.

[fj1200]

the constitution already limits them or at least it should the court cases i've brought up show the SCOTUS already leans AWAY from LEOs having the "right" to get data willy nilly.
again i say if they can get it so should EVERYONE. if the data is PUBLIC information then it may be fair for the LEOs to have it if not then NO. it's not a privilege that should be granted them WITHOT warrant.
simple. why should we ASSUME LEOs have the right to access here? what in the constitution GRANTS it? this is where the law stands not what deny them access.

I understand what you're saying and I may agree but the question is not of the Constitution and not a question of LEO "rights" IMO. Some things that suck are still Constitutional. Pass a law.

And no, I don't think the public should have access.

[Little-Acorn]

If I am driving to the store, and FJ decides to follow my car and chart where I go I have no recourse.

As long as the cops are doing things any person could reasonably do without breaking the law it's a non-issue.


But I hate it. But it's legal.

Change the laws.

It was legal in the 1984 story, too.

Does that mean it's good?

[fj1200]

It was legal in the 1984 story, too.

Does that mean it's good?

Who here is making the illegal-but-good argument or even the legal-but-good argument?

[revelarts]

I understand what you're saying and I may agree but the question is not of the Constitution and not a question of LEO "rights" IMO. Some things that suck are still Constitutional. Pass a law.

And no, I don't think the public should have access.
you've made several bad leaps there,
the Scotus has ruled on similar already so it is a constitutional matter, the constitution is in fact law, and it is about LEOs rights/authority/access.

As far as some things sucking but are still constitutional, OK sure, but this isn't one of them.


And If the gov't is using our funds to create the system and have our unknowing approval given by our representatives to create the database on OUR travel, it's for D@mn sure that it should be accessible by the public.

I'm seriously sadden at how far the right has slipped into a totalitarian state mentality. where the right is "OK"
with the gov't doing basically anything to "keep us safe", As if the the constitution doesn't cover this or that in this case.... or that case or with this new way of getting your personal info.

I wonder what line do you folks draw? do you think the 4th amendment or constitution applies anywhere?
Someone please answer me this,
what is illegal/unconstitutional for the police to do... in your opinion?
Obviously the LEOs think they can do whatever they want. But where would you reign in the LEOs? does the constitution apply to them at all? If you don't draw the line they and our "representatives" certainly won't.

I know some of you don't think the 5th 6th and 8th amendments aren't needed either. The only amendment the right seems completely serious about is the 2nd.

[fj1200]

you've made several bad leaps there,
the Scotus has ruled on similar already so it is a constitutional matter, the constitution is in fact law, and it is about LEOs rights/authority/access.

As far as some things sucking but are still constitutional, OK sure, but this isn't one of them.


...

I wonder what line do you folks draw? do you think the 4th amendment or constitution applies anywhere?
Someone please answer me this,
what is illegal/unconstitutional for the police to do... in your opinion?
Obviously the LEOs think they can do whatever they want. But where would you reign in the LEOs? does the constitution apply to them at all? If you don't draw the line they and our "representatives" certainly won't.

I know some of you don't think the 5th 6th and 8th amendments aren't needed either. The only amendment the right seems completely serious about is the 2nd.

It may be similar but it's not the same. And there are supposed safeguards in place with police use.

There are many things illegal for the police to do. There are many things unconstitutional for the police to do. Those aren't necessarily the same things. I'm serious about all of the amendments, with proper application of course.

[revelarts]

It may be similar but it's not the same. And there are supposed safeguards in place with police use....

If similar then an been ruled AGAINST shouldn't the default be that it NOT legal to the cops to pursue the action.
Should the cops use the standard do it and then ask forgiveness later or should they try to say FAR INSIDE the law when doing their jobs?

the protections are the constitution and legal precedence.



...there are many things illegal for the police to do. There are many things unconstitutional for the police to do. Those aren't necessarily the same things. I'm serious about all of the amendments, with proper application of course.
"with proper application of course"

this is where the store is given away.
the Left says "proper application" of the 2nd is for the only the POLICE and MILITARY to have guns. since the public is not Militia.
In this -LEOs record everyones travel habits- case you seem to be looking for some SPECIFIC prohibition for the LEOs NOT to have access to your personal travel habits. rather than "proper application" which means looking for SPECIFIC grant of authority for them to get it. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

[revelarts]

for the record


What the FBI Doesn't Want You To Know About Its "Secret" Surveillance Techniques




The FBI had to rewrite the book on its domestic surveillance activities in the wake of last January’s landmark Supreme Court decision in United States v. Jones (https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones). In Jones, a unanimous court held that federal agents must get a warrant to attach a GPS device to a car to track a suspect for long periods of time. But if you want to see the two memos describing how the FBI has reacted to Jones — and the new surveillance techniques the FBI is using beyond GPS trackers — you’re out of luck. The FBI says that information is “private and confidential.”
Yes, now that the Supreme Court ruled the government must get a warrant to use its previous go-to surveillance technique, it has now apparently decided that it’s easier to just keep everything secret. The ACLU requested the memos under the Freedom of Information Act — which you can see FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann waving around in public here (https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/291628843641499651/photo/1) — and the FBI redacted them almost entirely.
Though the FBI won’t release the memos, we do have some information from other sources on the surveillance techniques federal agents are already using. And for the most part the FBI contends they do not need a warrant, and one wonders, given the public nature of this information, why they are officially claiming its "secret."

Cell Phone Data Requests
Tellingly, in U.S. v. Jones, after the US government lost its case in the Supreme Court with the GPS device, it went right back to the district court and asserted it could get Jones’ cell phone site location data without a warrant. EFF has long argued cell location data, which can map your precise location for days or weeks at a time, is highly personal, and should require a warrant from a judge.
In July 2012, the New York Times reported (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/law-enforcement-agencies-demanded-cell-phone-user-info-much-more-13-million-times) that federal, state, and local law enforcement officials had requested all kinds of cell phone data, including mappings of suspects’ locations, a staggering 1.3 million times in the previous year. Worse, the real number was “almost certainly much higher" given they often request multiple people’s data with one request. The FBI also employs highly controversial “tower dumps” where they get the location information on everyone within a particular radius, potentially violating the privacy of thousands of innocent people with one request.

Stingray Interceptors
In late 2012, we reported on the secretive new device the FBI has been increasingly using for surveillance (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/stingrays-biggest-unknown-technological-threat-cell-phone-privacy) known as a IMSI catcher, or “Stingray.” A Stingray acts as a fake cell phone tower and locks onto all devices in a certain area to find a cell phone’s location, or perhaps even intercept phone calls and texts. Given it potentially sucks up thousands of innocent persons’ data, we called it an “unconstitutional, all you can eat data buffet.”
The FBI has gone to great lengths to keep this technology secret, even going as far as refusing to tell judges its full range of capabilities. Recently, documents obtained by EPIC Privacy (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/10/stingray_imsi_catcher_fbi_documents_shine_light_on _controversial_cellphone.html) through a FOIA request shed more light on the devices.

License Plate Readers
In cities across the country, local police departments and other law enforcement agencies are installing automated license plate readers that create databases of location information about individual cars (and their drivers). These readers can be mounted by the side of a busy road, scanning every car that rolls by, or on the dash of a police car, allowing officers to drive through and scan all the plates in a parking lot.
In Washington, D.C., nearly every block is captured by one of the more than 250 cameras scanning over 1,800 images per minute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/license-plate-readers-a-useful-tool-for-police-comes-with-privacy-concerns/2011/11/18/gIQAuEApcN_story.html). In Los Angeles, more than two dozen different law enforcement agencies operate license plate readers to collect over 160 million data points (http://www.laweekly.com/2012-06-21/news/license-plate-recognition-tracks-los-angeles/full/). This surveillance is untargeted, recording the movements of any car passes by. In cities that have become partners in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, or have entered into another data-sharing agreement, this location information is at the fingertips of those federal agents.

Drone Authorization
On top of all this, the FBI is one of just a few dozen public agencies that has an authorization to fly a drone (https://www.eff.org/document/faa-list-certificates-authorizations-coas) in the U.S. There is no evidence at this time that they are actively pursuing or using a specific device. But we do know that other branches of the federal government, namely the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are conducting drone surveillance along the U.S. border, and have at least occasionally loaned these capabilities to other departments. EFF has sued DHS for more information about that program (https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-demands-answers-about-predator-drone-flights-us), but in the meantime, as with the redacted documents, information about their use in surveillance remains frustratingly opaque.

Secret Law
This is just the latest example of the Obama administration trying to interpret public laws in secret without adequately informing its citizens. Currently, EFF is suing the government (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/2012-review-effs-fight-against-secret-surveillance-law) for its secret interpretation of the Patriot Act Section 215, and for secret FISA court opinions (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/new-year-new-fisa-amendments-act-reauthorization-same-old-secret-law) that could shed light on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. In addition, the ACLU has sued the Obama administration for its legal opinion stating it can kill US citizens (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/new-york-times-drone-strikes_n_2398393.html) overseas, away from the battlefield.
Of course, law enforcement needs the ability to conduct investigations. But explaining to the public how it generally conducts surveillance puts no one in danger, and compromises no investigations. After all, criminals have known the FBI has been able to wiretap phones with a warrant for decades and it hasn’t stopped them from using wiretaps to catch them.
This information is vital to know if law enforcement is complying with the law and constitution. As we’ve seen with GPS devices, and we are now seeing with cell phone tracking and the use of Stingrays, law enforcement will push the limits of their authority — and sometimes overstep it — if they are not kept in check by an informed public.


Related Cases

US v. Jones (https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/what-fbi-doesnt-want-you-know-about-its-surveillance-techniques


Not to mention the Trucks that scan vehicles as they pass by and Xray into homes, collect and store all internet data, emails, stop and frisk willy nilly, and demand "your papers" at check points...

So at what point has it gone to far?

[fj1200]

If similar then an been ruled AGAINST shouldn't the default be that it NOT legal to the cops to pursue the action.
Should the cops use the standard do it and then ask forgiveness later or should they try to say FAR INSIDE the law when doing their jobs?

the protections are the constitution and legal precedence.

They're accessing publicly available information, not tagging specific cars or devices. A DNA database is also precedence and I haven't heard the Constitutional argument against that.


"with proper application of course"

this is where the store is given away.
the Left says "proper application" of the 2nd is for the only the POLICE and MILITARY to have guns. since the public is not Militia.
In this -LEOs record everyones travel habits- case you seem to be looking for some SPECIFIC prohibition for the LEOs NOT to have access to your personal travel habits. rather than "proper application" which means looking for SPECIFIC grant of authority for them to get it. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

Nice. I meant properly applying the amendments to real life. I disagree that the scenario in question is a violation of the 4th.

[aboutime]

for the record



Not to mention the Trucks that scan vehicles as they pass by and Xray into homes, collect and store all internet data, emails, stop and frisk willy nilly, and demand "your papers" at check points...

So at what point has it gone to far?

Rev. Think about all that you said above. If the FBI didn't want any of us to know. How is it we are reading about a SECRET here?

Kinda doesn't sound very secretive anymore? Huh?

[gabosaurus]

Any why we are at it, why not repeal the entire Patriot Act. And the Second Amendment, which is severely outdated.

[revelarts]

They're accessing publicly available information, not tagging specific cars or devices. A DNA database is also precedence and I haven't heard the Constitutional argument against that.
....

"They're accessing publicly available information,"
You said earlier that the info shouldn't be publicly available, are you using a different meaning of "public"?
In Fact it's not "public available" it's only made available to LEO's and is PROVIDED by public funds and public taxes and voted on by Publicly elected representatives, and administered by bureaucrats.

concerning DNA

Forced DNA Collection Without Search Warrant Violates Privacy Rights

EFF Urges Appeals Court to Block Unconstitutional Federal Law


San Francisco - The forced collection of DNA samples from arrestees without search warrants violates their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal appeals court in an amicus brief filed Monday.
A federal law mandates DNA collection as a condition for bail for people who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI receives the DNA samples, conducts an analysis, and places a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who are not eventually convicted of a crime must make a request if they want their information removed from the FBI's system, while the data collected without cause from other individuals remains permanently. In its amicus brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, EFF argues that this collection and storage is unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on baseless search and seizure of private information.

"DNA reveals an extraordinary amount of private information about you—your family background, your current health, your future propensity for disease, and possibly even your behavioral tendencies," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "This data is bound to get even more sensitive as technology advances and we learn more about DNA."....

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/07/26



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/28/newborn-screenings-violate-dna-privacy-rights
US News and world reports

Newborn screening is practiced nationwide to detect rare conditions that may be life-threatening or require medical attention. Shortly after birth, the baby’s heel is pricked and a few drops of blood are placed on a special filter-paper blood spot card, which is sent to the state government laboratory for screening. According to a 2009 study published in the journal Public Health Genomics, nearly every child born in the United States is screened. However, not all parents know the screening took place. Birth is a stressful time. Some parents tell researchers they can’t remember it happened. Others say they were in a “fog.” Although most parents support newborn screening, parents in Minnesota and Texas have successfully sued after discovering the states stored and used babies’ blood spots after screenings without parental consent. DNA from blood samples has been used for genetic research. In Texas, the Department of State Health Services provided anonymous newborn blood specimens to the U.S. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory for the creation of a forensics database. In 19 states, blood samples taken from newborns are stored from 1 to 23 years, and in eight states they are kept indefinitely, according to the 2009 study led by Beth Tarini, an assistant professor of pediatrics with the University of Michigan Health System.
[Read Robert Jacobson: (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/28/www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/28/genetic-privacy-activists-threaten-newborns-health)Newborn Screening Saves Lives (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/28/www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/28/genetic-privacy-activists-threaten-newborns-health)]
At issue is ownership of newborn DNA. Should a baby’s birth signal the automatic transferal of DNA rights from a newborn to the government with no parental say? The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, which discovered this issue in 2003, firmly believes such a transfer is a fundamental violation of privacy rights. While some states allow parents to opt out of government storage and use, this is not parental consent. It’s dissent. It gives government first dibs to the baby’s DNA. Consent requires a form with a signature before the sample can be stored or used for research. Surrounded by the “fog” of a birth, most parents won’t opt out because they don’t even know their child’s DNA has been stored.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota has testified against legislation that would strip parents of consent rights in storing and using their babies’ blood samples. Calling it a “radical departure from the traditional use” of these samples, the ACLU said the program was originally developed for the benefit of the child, but the legislation changes the program to one “benefitting medical research at the expense of individual rights.” ....



Supreme Court Ruling a Blow to Genetic Privacy (https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-prisoners-rights/supreme-court-ruling-blow-genetic-privacy)




DNA Collection (https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/dna-collection)

By Michael Risher (https://www.aclu.org/blog/author/michael-risher), Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California at 5:29pm
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding Maryland's arrestee DNA testing law is a serious blow to genetic privacy. The ruling allows the police to seize the DNA of innocent Americans who have never been convicted of any sort of crime, without a search warrant. And as Justice Scalia makes clear in his scathing dissent, the majority opinion goes against decades of precedent that makes it clear that the police cannot search an individual for evidence of a crime (and that's clearly what they are doing here) without a specific reason to think that the search will actually uncover some evidence.
The majority opinion also largely ignores the real-world technological limits on the way that the police can actually use DNA. For example, the police identified Mr. King using fingerprints as soon as they arrested him, but it then took them more than three months even to upload his DNA into the state database; these types of delays are common because of huge evidence backlogs (the government admits that the average delay is about a month). But the Court says that the police are using arrestee testing to determine who they have arrested. This, in Justice Scalia's colorful words, "taxes the credulity of the credulous." And the Court supports its conclusion that taking DNA at arrest, instead of getting a search warrant or taking it from people who are actually convicted of a crime, is useful by citing law enforcement press releases dressed up as "studies," even though any inspection of these so-called studies shows that they do not support the government's own claims, as the ACLU pointed out in its brief to the Court (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_amicus_brief_1.pdf) (see pp. 26-31).





Finally, it refuses even to acknowledge that letting the police stick a swab into your mouth to take a sample of your DNA, to be analyzed and included in a massive criminal databank, is any different from taking a fingerprint or even looking at a gang member's tattoos. But as we all know, DNA is fundamentally different – it is our genetic blueprint. We can only hope that a future Court will do what Justice Scalia suggests in his dissent, and overturn this unfortunate decision....

[fj1200]

"They're accessing publicly available information,"
You said earlier that the info shouldn't be publicly available, are you using a different meaning of "public"?
In Fact it's not "public available" it's only made available to LEO's and is PROVIDED by public funds and public taxes and voted on by Publicly elected representatives, and administered by bureaucrats.

concerning DNA

Concerning bringing up different issues other than the OP. :slap:

Yes, "publicly available" because it accesses information of those driving down the public roads. You are more than Constitutionally able to sit in your lawn chair and right down the license plate number of every car that drives by.

[jimnyc]

Concerning bringing up different issues other than the OP. :slap:

Yes, "publicly available" because it accesses information of those driving down the public roads. You are more than Constitutionally able to sit in your lawn chair and right down the license plate number of every car that drives by.

IMO... The state owns the plates, it's a privilege to drive and have registration with the state. They already have the information on EVERY vehicle out there.

Maybe they should take those databases and throw them away, let the police gather information themselves? Maybe a class action lawsuit against the DMV for illegally collecting information and sharing it with the appropriate authorities? In fact, I think going forward that folks shouldn't even have to register, as it's a violation of my privacy. :)

[aboutime]

This link is for everyone on this thread who is concerned about maintaining their privacy according to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Truth is. If you are worried about the Police, or Govt. having access to your information.

That is just Small Fish, compared to what this link gives EVERYONE.....http://www.foia.gov/

[revelarts]

Concerning bringing up different issues other than the OP. :slap:
FJ you brought up DNA not me.
You said ."A DNA database is also precedence and I haven't heard the Constitutional argument against that."

so i pointed out several constitutional cases and otherwise..
are you saying you get to bring a topic up in defense of your position but no one can reply?



Yes, "publicly available" because it accesses information of those driving down the public roads. You are more than Constitutionally able to sit in your lawn chair and right down the license plate number of every car that drives by.

And if individual cops want to sit by the side of the road and do the same they can too.
But if they are passing the info around the country in a database WE all get to be in the loop as well. And other leos need to get a warrant for the info.

And to Jim's point, Frankly Driving is not a privilege. it is in fact a right. a legal right. though one we've not exercised so it's been Assumed that the state grants the privilege. that's color of law not law. the only people that legally need a license for the roads and highways are those engaged in business. other than that the right to travel public roadways is a citizens right. even more-so since he pay for the land and roads and the state acts as the citizens agent.


But it seems assuming that the state works for us instead of the other way round doesn't makes sense to some folks.

[sundaydriver]

[QUOTE=fj1200;72247 Tracking is nothing more than a database.? [/QUOTE]

I bet with this data base the POPO could put in your license # and cross reference it to areas where crimes have been committed and link your car to at least 3 crime sites over time.

Pick em up for questioning. We've always been suspicious of him anyway. :laugh:

[fj1200]

FJ you brought up DNA not me.
You said ."A DNA database is also precedence and I haven't heard the Constitutional argument against that."

so i pointed out several constitutional cases and otherwise..
are you saying you get to bring a topic up in defense of your position but no one can reply?

Yes, DNA is in a database. The cases you noted pertained to how DNA came to be in the database IIRC; they can't take it from you without a warrant but you don't need a warrant to watch someone drive their car. It's not a publicly available thing, DNA, like driving your car down the road is.


And if individual cops want to sit by the side of the road and do the same they can too.
But if they are passing the info around the country in a database WE all get to be in the loop as well. And other leos need to get a warrant for the info.

And to Jim's point, Frankly Driving is not a privilege. it is in fact a right. a legal right. though one we've not exercised so it's been Assumed that the state grants the privilege. that's color of law not law. the only people that legally need a license for the roads and highways are those engaged in business. other than that the right to travel public roadways is a citizens right. even more-so since he pay for the land and roads and the state acts as the citizens agent.


But it seems assuming that the state works for us instead of the other way round doesn't makes sense to some folks.

All I'm saying is it's not unconstitutional because you have no expectation of privacy driving your car down the road. Don't like it? Pass a law.

[debater]

Americans are so dead and degraded now that if the US Army liquidates Fargo tomorrow, no one would even shrug.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Americans are so dead and degraded now that if the US Army liquidates Fargo tomorrow, no one would even shrug.
Holy SHIT man... where in the FUCK did you come from?

Are you posting from a cell in an insane asylum?

[debater]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

You on some good shit or what?

[aboutime]

Americans are so dead and degraded now that if the US Army liquidates Fargo tomorrow, no one would even shrug.


Your jug of Kool-aid must have tipped over, and instead of drinking it...You have INHALED IT! Life for you sounds really miserable since Hillary..YOUR HERO lost. But we won't accept your misery, or negativity here. In fact. It's actually FUNNY.
<img src="https://pics.me.me/i-paid-over-300-million-to-fix-an-election-and-7125072.png">

[debater]

The elites laugh when the 99% are divided.

[aboutime]

The elites laugh when the 99% are divided.


Listen little, immature, progressive, propagandist idiot. You wish you had it so well wherever you happen to be. By the way. Your title of this thread is OLD NEWS.

You see...everyone who DRIVES anything, on any road in America has something called a License, both in cards, and the tags on their vehicle. So....of course....the Justice Dept. spies on millions of cars. To be exact...

Passenger vehicles in the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Note: this article adopts the U.S. Department of Transportation's definition of a passenger ... Overall, there were an estimated 263.6 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States in 2015. .... Due to what many American consumers have perceived as a declining quality among the ..... Retrieved 2017-01-17.

[debater]

No one hates freedom more than Americans do.

[NightTrain]

No one hates freedom more than Americans do.


What would a Red Commie Chinese person know about freedom, other than you have none?

[aboutime]

No one hates freedom more than Americans do.


Funny how people like you hate Americans for even having more Freedom than you.

PROPAGANDA coming from you is as entertaining as Farting in a Space suit.

[debater]

Some people use proxies.

[Black Diamond]

Some people use proxies.
John Wilkes Booth must have been anti proxy.

[Gunny]

No one hates freedom more than Americans do.Coming from a commie ass little slope, that's rich.

[debater]

When did Commies defend freedom?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No one hates freedom more than Americans do.
So how long have you been a troll?

Are you on the George Soros payroll?

How much you get, $.25 a troll post?

[debater]

Why would Soros support freedom?