<p>Some live in the real world. Some live in make-believe. Technology is outstripping the legal system.</p>
<p>I wish they taught forensics and debate in schools, because this is getting damned frustrating.</p>
<p>BCEagle91, you just keep pointing how our privacy is already compromised, or could be compromised with existing technology. That’s not the point; we all understand the many ways we can be spied upon.</p>
<p>The point is that the government—are you getting this? the government—has the power to take away your freedom. That’s why some of us don’t want the governmentto be able to do the spying. If my neighbor spies on my in my bedroom, I may suffer embarrassment. But if the governmentspies on me in my bedroom, I can still be (let’s say, for the sake of argument) imprisoned in some states for sodomy, and there is no shortage of sick, backwards, sexually-repressed prosecutors who would just love to make that happen.</p>
<p>It’s not about whether we *have *privacy. We all know that privacy is becoming scarcer every day. It’s about whether the governmentshould be allowed to use its power to invade your privacy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Maybe you should study harder then.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that very few people understand this.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, I’ve lived in countries where they do take away many of your freedoms. Guess what? Those places are quite livable.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d like a new car too.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Duke Lacrosse Case.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Technology > legal system.</p>
<p>mantori:</p>
<p>Since you object to the use of a GPS tracking device on a car without a court order, would you also object to the police tracking you visually without a court order? Should they be permitted to follow your car with a helicopter or another vehicle without the court order? Should they be permitted to do any kind of stakeout without a court order?</p>
<p>I see this GPS device as simply something that makes the job they’re already permitted to do simpler for them. It doesn’t allow them to do anything they couldn’t do before. It’s not anything revolutionary. I assume that’s why the court stated it was okay. It doesn’t mean they can, without a court order, enter your house to spy on you, enter your garage to plant the device, monitor your phone calls, etc. </p>
<p>I know you’re lumping it all together but I think using a GPS device to track a car on public streets, where one doesn’t have any expectation of privacy, and which the police are already permitted to do (i.e. follow a suspect), isn’t the same as the other more invasive means of tapping phones, breaking into one’s house, etc. </p>
<p>What do you think of the use of video cameras to monitor what’s happening on a city street? What about the police using video cameras in their cars to video what a car in front of them is doing? That seems okay to me. However, there’s new technology that will allow police to ‘see’ inside one’s home. I can see how that’s crossing a line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They should do none of those things unless they have a warrant. If they have a halfway valid reason, they can damned well get a judge’s permission first, unless they have just witnessed me committing a crime or endangering myself or others. This seems like a reasonable expectation, so why do I feel like no one else cares? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t mind them as much—not much at all, really—because they are not trained on me specifically. My objection is to any citizen being singled out for no valid reason, with the validity being determined by a judge. Monitoring a large area with a stationary camera is not a means, or at least much of a means, for a crooked cop to carry out a personal vendetta against me. A GPS on my car can easily be used that way.</p>
<p>People, for God’s sake, all I’m asking is that the police obtain warrants before monitoring private citizens. I swear, I can’t believe this idea isn’t shared by more people. It frightens me, it really does.</p>
<p>^^ Okay, so your objection doesn’t really have to do with the GPS technology used - it’s with the act of doing any kind of monitoring at all - even the low tech method of watching a drug house while sitting in a car, following a suspect, etc. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of the objection.</p>
<p>Yes, you’ve got it. To me the technology is immaterial. It’s just a means to an end, and I want to know that the end is legitimate.</p>