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-depart...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/politi...GLQ_story.html

By 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-w...-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 established that affixing a GPStracking 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) 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/2013/1...-track-car-gps
BY 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 unreasonable under the 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 must not have gotten that memo. But now, in an important new decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 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
ByChristian Brazil Bautista —<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/2...rack-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.

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, 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/2...afety/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

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...