Justice Dept spies on millions of cars

[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

[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. 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 — 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 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 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 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. In Los Angeles, more than two dozen different law enforcement agencies operate license plate readers to collect over 160 million data points. 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 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, 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 for its secret interpretation of the Patriot Act Section 215, and for secret FISA court opinions 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 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/deeplinks/2013/0...nce-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/articl...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: Newborn Screening Saves Lives]
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




DNA Collection

By 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 (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.

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.