quote:That's probable cause. The police do searches that way all the time.
It is not probable cause. Not even close. And if they do searches like that, the evidence they gather and statements made after arrest are not admissible.
quote:"The suspect entered this apartment complex which is surrounded. Let's go door to door until we find him"
If there were 3 apartments in the complex, maybe. 300, absolutely not. It wouldn't hold up in court.
quote:Even seen cops? I don't know HOW many yards (personal PRIVATE property) they run through in persuit of their suspect. "hey that dude's hiding in that person's privately owned shed". That's invasion of privacy as well. Happens all the time thank God.
Hot pursuit, when the police already have probable cause about the person they're pursuing, is an entirely different matter than monitoring people for whom no probable cause exists.
posted
C what Dag is asking is if there is a serial killer in the city do we do a thorough search of every home in that city?
Here is my problem with tracking cars.
President of the US is up for re-election.
Joe Schmoe disagrees with the President on several issues, and has been extremely outspoken about it.
Suddenly all the efforts of the federal tracking system are following Joe Schmoe, not seeing if he is doing anything illegal, but seeing where he goes. What other cars meet with him. Who those owners are.
These people are placed under surveilance, blackballed, fired from their present politically sensitive jobs. One is having an affair--not illegal--and this is reported to the media, and to his family. Another has a friend borrow his car who stops at a porn store. Suddenly he is being reported as a purchaser of smut. All those opposing the President, or more likely, the head of this organization, are smeared based on facts obtained by this system.
Don't think it could happen? Instead of using the FBI to track down Organized crime, Hoover used it to keep track of Martin Luther King's mistresses, and JFK's, and others.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you contradicted yourself. You said that someone hiding in a 300 room apartment complex that is sealed off is NOT probable cause, but that police chasing people through peoples yards and looking in their sheds and jumping their fences, etc. is probable cause...
Is it because of location? Lack of Walls? What is it that leads to a police officer being able to enter a yard at will, or a shed in persuit of a suspect, but does not allow him to enter a domicile in the same persuit?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't contradicted myself at all. Someone runs into an apartment complex. You know he's in one of 300 apartments. A search of each separate residence requires particularized probable cause for that residence. At best, you know there's a 1 in 300 chance the suspect is in that apartment.
Someone whom you are chasing hops a fence. You need probable cause to violate the curtilage of the residence. You have it, because you saw him jump the fence.
posted
Oooh.. about the checking the credit thing... I HATE that. I hate it hate it hate it. It's never happened to me--yet, but I hate that it COULD. I know they need to have my permission first, but I know if they want to check my credit, I won't get the job.
I used to have GOOD credit, then I became unemployed, couldn't find another job, and am behind on many bills. And several medical bills that we can NOT pay have gone into collections.
So, I need money. And in order to get money, I must have a JOB. And in order to get a job, they'll check my credit?? WHY?? To make sure I really don't need the job?
I know some businesses that are financially-related might need to check credit, but from the research I've done, that's not the only reason they check it.
A large sample of data such as a track of all automobile movements creates the perfect opportunity for this kind of problem to crop up. Suppose someone robs 10 banks in LA over the course of a year. I'd almost guarantee that at least one person other than the bank robbers drove within 5 blocks of each bank the day before each bank was robbed. It sounds like pretty damning evidence, but it's not.
Now, this isn't in itself a reason not to support the database. But it's a good example of the kind of problems that can arise, and why it's not as useful as some might think.
Dagonee
I can't get the link to format correctly - just cut and paste it. Sorry.
quote: These people are placed under surveilance, blackballed, fired from their present politically sensitive jobs. One is having an affair--not illegal--and this is reported to the media, and to his family
No offense but you jumped from law enforcement record to public record, which are two different things.
Ever heard of the married men who sneak out to the local parks to have homosexual sex in public, and get caught by the police, but their wives never find out about it?
Why do you think that is?
quote:Don't think it could happen? Instead of using the FBI to track down Organized crime, Hoover used it to keep track of Martin Luther King's mistresses, and JFK's, and others.
And what was the harm in their actions or the repurcussions? These were people who purposely put themselves in the public spotlight.
Both of the Men you mention are dead, were never charged with crimes associated with their actions because none of it was illegal, as you stated.
Are you saying they did things that they didn't want anyone else to know? Like Nixon in the Oval Office? Is THAT an invasion of privacy?
You are assuming that a person driving their car on the road is a private matter. Do you ever look at another car while driving? Do the Police? Why? Why invade my privacy by watching me on the road. Or by watching my driving skills to see if I'm drunk. Or follow me to see where I am going.
It seems to me that people doing stupid things in public places are the ones that are the most concerned.
"Hey I want all the publicity possible when I'm doing something good. Over here camera. But WHOA! when I'm doing something I'm ashamed of, I don't want anyone to know about it."
Public figures are the worst when it comes to this.
No offense, but when just about anyone that wants can pull a credit report on you regarding hooking up your power or water or cable....or even a job application...
Car Tracking is sublimely trivial.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It sounds like pretty damning evidence, but it's not.
No it sounds like "This person might have seen the bank robbers, let's go ask him/her for their help to see if they can remember what they may have seen"
It's the exact same as asking a neighboor about the murder that happened the night before. Is the neighbor guilty? No, but you'd be a pretty stupid cop to not go ask, "Did you hear anything last night? Did you see anything? Did you know the victim? When was the last time you saw him/her".
quote: But it's a good example of the kind of problems that can arise, and why it's not as useful as some might think.
Those problems exist already in our CURRENT techniques, but we still use them. Because a system has flaws doesn't mean to throw it out. Otherwise our democracy should have been overthrown ages ago and our legal system wouldn't have lasted a decade.
It's an advanced tool that if used correctly and protected from abuse, can save lives and help fight crime.
Having a Car Tracked doesn't assume Guilt at all in the same way putting a License plate on your car doesn't assume guilt.
It's a tool. Nothing more and nothing less.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was also founded on a belief in God, that adultery is wrong and that women shouldn't vote, but as anyone will tell you, things change.
Really? Which God? I can't seem to find his name in the Constitution....or the Bill of Rights....
Or any mention of a prohibition of Adultry either..
I would post about 20 links disproving this:
quote: Not necessarily, the bottleneck it would create would not allow ambulences to get to and from crimes, nor firefighters, nor police cars. Nor have any studies shown that the difference would be that big if they were lowered. The fact that speed limits exists contradict your whole argument however.
But I feel I have already done too much of your homework on threads before this one.
If lowering speed limits doesn't make driving safer, why are there limits at all, ever? Duh.
Why did the Federal Goverment mandate lower speed limits (no faster than 55) for years, even after the oil embargo was lifted?
Because the faster you go, the more fatal accidents (and accidents in general) there are.
Google is your friend...as is factcheck....
Keep in mind that one of the freedoms you refuse to defend here is your right to say what you want, when you want to say it. Your right to privacy extends far past your shuttered windows and doors, Chad.
Our roads don't need radar, unlike air traffic. They can operate well without it, and have for decades.
Without radar, air travel wouldn't be possible, so it is worth it...and security in the plane has taken a much greater importance since 9/11, so we all have to live with the hightened security measures.
We don't have to live with this much intrusion though....even if, in YOUR opinion we should have to.
posted
If you really think that the FBI and CIA were justified in spying on MTK and JFK, while they were in private residences going about their own business, then there is nothing further to say to you.
BTW, there WAS some harm in their actions....they treid to blackmail MLK with the information.
The same standards apply to everyone, Chad...but if the politicions and police are the only ones with the access to this type of info (Inforcement vs. public record, remember?) who do you think would be at a loss?
There is too much at risk for this to be allowed to happen, and I don't think it will become widespread pratice.
I can see it in rental cars, but not in private vehicles.
Although if you want it, Chad, feel free to participate in it....
As long as anyone who doesn't want to can opt out.
quote:Those problems exist already in our CURRENT techniques, but we still use them. Because a system has flaws doesn't mean to throw it out. Otherwise our democracy should have been overthrown ages ago and our legal system wouldn't have lasted a decade.
Hmm. I seem to remember writing, "Now, this isn't in itself a reason not to support the database."
Do I take it you are now admitting I did not contradict myself about probable cause in the two different chase situations.
quote:No it sounds like "This person might have seen the bank robbers, let's go ask him/her for their help to see if they can remember what they may have seen"
People are convicted on evidence like this all the time. There's a SIDS convict in England who was convicted on statistical evidence and later freed when they realized that a correct analysis revealed a 50% chance she had smopthered the babies.
Happens here all the time, usually based on the misunderstanding of how low-probability events interact with each other to create probability of guilt.
posted
I am. (or at least I try to be) But when I'm not....that's my fault for doing it, not someone else's fault for finding out about it.
I think it will inevitably happen. Insurance companies will have a right to require them on your vehicles in order to get insurance.
The same with seatbelts.
The same with warehouses and buisinesses without fire sprinkler systems.
I personally would much rather have it be the government with some oversight and taxpayer say in it, than private companies initiating it (which has already begun and is probably the way it will go) and dictating how it is going to be employed and distributed.
If the government did it, I think it would be tracking of just the Car only.
WHEN the insurance companies insist on it (and we are all obliged to because of cost) it will be monitoring of the car, it's speed, whether the oil has been changed and the status of the breaks.
Basically everything a car can tell it's owner will be what it tells the insurance company, and they'll have the data and studies to prove it's necessary and affects their cost.
If they can charge teenage boys more than teenage girls because studies show they are more of a risk, they most definately will charge a TON more for people who don't have the tracking device on their car.
I would much rather have the government be the sole accesser of that information than have it reside with a private company. Because if it resides with a private company, not only can the government get at it, but there are no state or federal oversight in how it is used or distributed.
I don't think it's a matter of IF, it's a matter of when for insurance companies.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about you guys, but I'm keeping my brilliant red Barchetta; the one my old uncle's holding on to for me, out on his farm in the country-side. Except the damned crack-pot keeps it under a pile of old debris, like someone's actually going to spy on it, or something. He's already scratched the paint in two places!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I meant if the police chase a guy into a neighborhood and the neighborhood is sealed off so they know the guy is in there, I have seen them "look over fences", and "open storage sheds", "shine lights in car windows and under cars" and other things WITHOUT seeing the suspect enter directly into any of those places.
I've even seen helicopters shine bright spotlights into peoples "personal and private" back yards searching for a suspect that just may have entered into the neighborhood.
All of those are invasions of people "privacy".
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about when they shine lights THROUGH the window looking for them. They are looking INSIDE the apartment. Is that ok as well?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget that there is a cost to building the network for these things with all the concomitant costs of storage, bandwidth, support, oversight. Tanstaafl and all that. For a private entity, even an insurance company, to build and maintain such a network without an equal resultant value for their investment isn't going to happen.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The value is already there. Proof in court proceedings and an justified opportunity to raise rates.
"As you can see, my insured client did in fact have his signal on"
"Yes, as per the tracking on the car, my client did apply the breaks"
"No indications were lit on the car that maintenance needed to be done on ______"
"According to the tracking records my client was going the speed limit"
Alot of consumers will want it as well.
"Officer I swear I wasn't speeding"
You get the Insurance company to pull the tracking results for that moment and in court:
"Yes your honor per the tracking results I was only going 37 instead of 49."
Also many cars are insured against theft. How'd you like to be able to recover your car with a phone call. I bet insurance companies would.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But being on someone's lawn or private property and looking through their windows is not a legal stance, yet I've seen cops walk up to a house and shine lights into it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll see. The scope of the data the article is talking about isn't miniscule. Transmitting that amount of data over a wireless network in real time is not negligible. Think of the costs just using a cell phone, then throw that into the cost of operating a car. At least 50 bucks a month, maybe more, for what comes down to emergency situations for the private individual. Most people are just going to pay the 100 dollar speeding ticket every couple of years rather than fork out another 500 bucks plus more a year. And that doesn't even factor in the nightmare of repair for this integrated system.
Maybe private companies will jump on it. Maybe the benefits will outweigh the costs, but the cost to build the network, install all the recievers and transponders in the cars and around the country and maintain it...expensive. And *forcing* people to pay for it? That's going to go over like a lead balloon for most people, unless definite benefits can be shown, not just 'maybe' situations.
quote: Think of the costs just using a cell phone, then throw that into the cost of operating a car. At least 50 bucks a month, maybe more, for what comes down to emergency situations for the private individual. Most people are just going to pay the 100 dollar speeding ticket every couple of years rather than fork out another 500 bucks plus a month a year. And that doesn't even factor in the nightmare of repair for this integrated system.
You will if your insurance premiums are thousands more than that if you don't have it.
And remember that OnStar is already out there sucessfully.
The gates already open, it's just awaiting a partnership.
Watch for a strategic partnership between OnStar and Insurance Companies.
quote:But being on someone's lawn or private property and looking through their windows is not a legal stance, yet I've seen cops walk up to a house and shine lights into it.
posted
There are quite a few homicides discovered that way, and when the murderer is tried, I don't think I've ever seen them discount evidence from the Victim's home.
If they look in and see a crime being committed, their testimony of such is admissible in court.
As far as I have seen anyways.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And with the ability to control cars remotely (as people have said--you can stop the car remotely. How much harder is it, in these days of "fly by wire" to actually be able to start, accelerate, brake and steer the car), you could conceivably be thinking you're playing nothing more than a video game (Grand Theft Auto 2008), when in actuality you're driving a physical car, with people in it, into buildings and through plate glass windows in East L.A.
quote:There are quite a few homicides discovered that way, and when the murderer is tried, I don't think I've ever seen them discount evidence from the Victim's home.
If they look in and see a crime being committed, their testimony of such is admissible in court.
You keep conflating the idea of general surveillance and searches where there is probable cause.
If there's been a murder, or the cops have reason to believe someone inside is hurt, they have probable cause.
That doesn't translate into making full-time surveillance acceptable.
posted
OnStar is already out there and does open doors that are locked and monitor Air Bag deployment.
You are the offender in a hit and run, your airbag deploys, you're darn right that the record of the time that deployment is going to be brought up and used.
IMHO it's not if, but when and it's going to be privately moderated.
So look at E-mail and how it's abused, and that's the future without government oversight.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, Chad, are you arguing your point as a devil's advocate, to explore all its ramifications, or do you truly believe what you're typing? I ask not to condemn or anything, but because the arguments that you are making are very much on the 'fascist' side of things.
I'm not using hte word fascist to call names, merely to point out that if you haven't considered looking into that philosophy, that you might want to. You could be Hatrack's very own resident fascist. It would be cool. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jefferson is both right and wrong...I think I've made this argument somewhere before. And it's worth noting that the actual quote referred to "essential liberty" and "temporary security".
There is a certain degree of mutual dependence between liberty and security--you can't have one without some degree of the other. If you have no freedom, what exactly is your security protecting, and what does the "life" you have really mean? But if you lack security, what freedom do you really have--triple-locked in your apartment with a gun under your couch cushions, you may as well be in jail.
I think Jefferson knew that and was talking in relative terms--thus his use of "temporary" and "essential". Unfortunately, people quoting him have a tendency to speak in terms of absolutes.
Something I forgot--a description of anarchy I found somewhere. "If all your gun-toting neighbors disapprove of what you are doing, it is effectively illegal!"
posted
I was remembering it from World Geography class in 9th grade. It is hard to remember the adjectives 3 years later.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For a private entity, even an insurance company, to build and maintain such a network without an equal resultant value for their investment isn't going to happen.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
