FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants
149 replies, posted
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34068568]A warrant takes too long, the suspect has plenty of time to move out to hiding. They most certainly get the warrant, it's just the time constraint that is the problem.[/QUOTE]
i think the fbi can get a warrant fairly easy unless they have no reason to be searching for you in the first place. [I]I think you are confusing the FBI with the police department[/I]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068240]getting a warrant takes too long so fuck it, not like people deserve any sense of privacy anyway
and yes the location of your car is a matter of privacy when [b]they're literally stalking you and watching your every move digitally.[/b] i'm not against the use of gps tracking devices, i'm against the use of gps tracking devices just on a hunch.[/QUOTE]
THEY AREN'T, YOU IDIOT. They would just know where your car is. It's not like they installed hidden microphones or video cameras. Saying the FBI should need a warrant to do this is like saying they should need a warrant to simply follow you. Literally following someone around could easily be considered more of an invasion of privacy by an offended person. Law enforcement is bogged down enough by bureaucracy as it is.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068536]i would hope there is some kind of law preventing government agents from stalking you without any legal verification beforehand?
ughhh
apply this to literally anything else and you'll see why its an issue
"why do we need a warrant to arrest this guy? its a hunch that could possibly save millions of lives!!!!"[/QUOTE]
FBI doesn't deal with small time criminals, they deal with ones that commit crimes against the government or murderers that go on sprees. These people are much bigger threat and this allows them to be more efficient in tracking them down. Once again, why would you even care about this if it's only with FBI and major crimes.
[QUOTE=clockroach;34068634]THEY AREN'T, YOU IDIOT. They would just know where your car is. It's not like they installed hidden microphones or video cameras. Saying the FBI should need a warrant to do this is like saying they should need a warrant to simply follow you. Literally following someone around could easily be considered more of an invasion of privacy by an offended person. Law enforcement is bogged down enough by bureaucracy as it is.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person[/quote]
by the way, that bureaucracy you're talking about is also referred to as respecting the privacy of american citizens. i'm pretty sure if anyone else followed me around town or put a gps tracking device on my car, they'd be arrested for stalking. if the fbi has such a weak fucking case against you that they cant even get a warrant, they shouldnt be following you in the first place
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34068636]FBI doesn't deal with small time criminals, they deal with ones that commit crimes against the government or murderers that go on sprees. These people are much bigger threat and this allows them to be more efficient in tracking them down. Once again, why would you even care about this if it's only with FBI and major crimes.[/QUOTE]
because you're giving the fbi the right to track people's locations on a fucking hunch?
i.e. they need no legal reason to track american citizens. not the kind of power i'd like to be giving them.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068585]i think the fbi can get a warrant fairly easy unless they have no reason to be searching for you in the first place. [I]I think you are confusing the FBI with the police department[/I][/QUOTE]
No, the FBI have to do just as much with getting a warrant and it takes a couple of weeks or days to do so. But, the person of interest that they were following could use that time to slip away.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34068755]No, the FBI have to do just as much with getting a warrant and it takes a couple of weeks or days to do so. But, the person of interest that they were following could use that time to slip away.[/QUOTE]
im trying to think of a scenario where the person is just going to slip away because you couldnt get a warrant in time
you act as if the agents roll up behind the POI's car ready to arrest them and save america, but their supervisor is struggling to get a warrant (because apparently he didnt have one beforehand?) so they have to watch the target peel away in his camaro never to be seen again
as soon as they figured out who their target was (i.e. the person they're apparently going to lose forever if they cant track him without a warrant) they should have applied for a warrant so they can do their job properly. i somehow doubt the fbi just rolls up next to a car and realizes "oh fuck thats our guy!!!!!" despite having no description or identity of the target
This thread:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/d3I9K.jpg[/img]
This really isn't any different than someone watching you drive your car around, and they aren't damaging your vehicle in any way.
Another thing is, they have to do it on public property, they cant just waltz into your garage and put it on there.
This is just something that really wont effect a lot of people.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068736]by the way, that bureaucracy you're talking about is also referred to as respecting the privacy of american citizens. i'm pretty sure if anyone else followed me around town or put a gps tracking device on my car, they'd be arrested for stalking. if the fbi has such a weak fucking case against you that they cant even get a warrant, they shouldnt be following you in the first place
because you're giving the fbi the right to track people's locations on a fucking hunch?
i.e. they need no legal reason to track american citizens. not the kind of power i'd like to be giving them.[/QUOTE]
Yes I am giving it on a fucking hunch, most of the time they have research and evidence why they have that so called hunch. You act like this is going to become 1984 with the government tracking you or some shit [B]When its only being done on people that are investigated for committing a major crime (AKA not you).[/B]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068736]by the way, that bureaucracy you're talking about is also referred to as respecting the privacy of american citizens. i'm pretty sure if anyone else followed me around town or put a gps tracking device on my car, they'd be arrested for stalking. if the fbi has such a weak fucking case against you that they cant even get a warrant, they shouldnt be following you in the first place
because you're giving the fbi the right to track people's locations on a fucking hunch?
i.e. they need no legal reason to track american citizens. not the kind of power i'd like to be giving them.[/QUOTE]
1. You have a right to privacy, not necessarily secrecy.
2. When the FBI investigates a suspected criminal, it isn't stalking, it's [b]investigating.[/b]
3. Who said they had too weak a case for a warrant? They just [b]didn't need one.[/b]
4. Why should a weak case be a reason to not investigate a suspect? How do you expect them to build a stronger one?
5. THIS MAN WAS STEALING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
[QUOTE=ice445;34060089]Im okay with this as long as only the FBI can do it, not your run of the mill cops. Because it's not like the FBI are really going to abuse this "power". It just makes it less work for them to know where you are, which they would know anyway regardless since you're important enough that the FBI is investigating you.[/QUOTE]
when you give a mouse a cookie....
[QUOTE=clockroach;34068843]1. You have a right to privacy, not necessarily secrecy.
2. When the FBI investigates a suspected criminal, it isn't stalking, it's [b]investigating.[/b]
3. Who said they had too weak a case for a warrant? They just [b]didn't need one.[/b]
4. Why should a weak case be a reason to not follow a suspect? How do you expect them to build a stronger one?
5. THIS MAN WAS STEALING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.[/QUOTE]
1. [quote]Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively.[/quote]
[quote]Secrecy (also called clandestinity or furtiveness) is the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups, perhaps while sharing it with other individuals.[/quote]
2. semantics make everything better!
3. i'm not talking about the OP's specific case
4. if the case is so weak it's not capable of granting a license it's hardly a case at all
5. see #3
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34068830]Yes I am giving it on a fucking hunch, most of the time they have research and evidence why they have that so called hunch. You act like this is going to become 1984 with the government tracking you or some shit [B]When its only being done on people that are investigated for committing a major crime (AKA not you).[/B][/QUOTE]
if they've researched it and they have evidence they should be capable of getting a warrant as well
also "it probably wont happen to me so what do i care lmao!!"
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34060257]"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is a really weak argument
i can't say im comfortable with the fbi being allowed to just bug your car on a hunch[/QUOTE]
Why would you care that someone knows where your car is, if you're not doing anything illegal?
Now before you jump the gun, think about it. The data goes to some control room to be seen by some guy "yep, that man is driving to walmart"
[QUOTE=Trumple;34068946]Why would you care that someone knows where your car is, if you're not doing anything illegal?
Now before you jump the gun, think about it. The data goes to some control room to be seen by some guy "yep, that man is driving to walmart"[/QUOTE]
please stop using "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"
i really cant say anything more than that
its a really weak argument that completely overlooks the basic principles of privacy
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34068895]1.
2. semantics make everything better!
3. i'm not talking about the OP's specific case
4. if the case is so weak it's not capable of granting a license it's hardly a case at all
5. see #3
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
if they've researched it and they have evidence they should be capable of getting a warrant as well
also "it probably wont happen to me so what do i care lmao!!"[/QUOTE]
Your arguments aren't arguments at all. You apparently seem to think that the entire basic purpose of the FBI is somehow an affront to humanity.
Also [quote]i'm not talking about the OP's specific case[/quote] Why not? That's what this thread is about, genius.
[QUOTE=clockroach;34069010]All I can say is thank god you're not in a position of power. Your arguments aren't arguments at all.
Also Why not? That's what this thread is about, genius.[/QUOTE]
uh well actually in case you haven't noticed the thread is more a debate about whether or not the supreme courts ruling was justified and whether or not it's a good idea to give the fbi this exception.
also "your arguments are wrong because: they're wrong"
It will do more good than bad
[QUOTE=ice445;34060089]Im okay with this as long as only the FBI can do it, not your run of the mill cops. Because it's not like the FBI are really going to abuse this "power". It just makes it less work for them to know where you are, which they would know anyway regardless since you're important enough that the FBI is investigating you.[/QUOTE]
This feels incredibly Orwellian, why don't they put a camera in every room of your home? If you aren't doing anything illegal then you mustn't have anything to hide?
Before you guys flip a shit over this, which it looks like half of you already have, remember that this guy is a criminal. They used this to bring justice to a criminal.
You guys are hypocrites: when some criminal gets away with a crime because of some silly law, you're all in outrage and understandably you call it a stupid system. Now when a criminal is brought to justice with a little tweak of the system, you all go ape shit and pull out the tin foil hats. Look at it from the judge's point of view: the now-proven-guilty man has evidence against him, who is the judge going to punish?
[QUOTE=DiscoBiscut;34069048]It will do more good than bad[/QUOTE]
which is like saying it's ok to execute 1 innocent person on death row for every 10 because it's doing more good than bad
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069038]uh well actually in case you haven't noticed the thread is more a debate about whether or not the supreme courts ruling was justified and whether or not it's a good idea to give the fbi this exception.
also [b]"your arguments are wrong because: they're wrong"[/b][/QUOTE]
Actually that's more representative of your arguments. Mine were "here's why you're wrong."
You literally responded to one of my comments with "semantics makes everything better" when I stated the basic principle of what the FBI does every day.
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069085]Before you guys flip a shit over this, which it looks like half of you already have, remember that this guy is a criminal. They used this to bring justice to a criminal.
You guys are hypocrites: when some criminal gets away with a crime because of some silly law, you're all in outrage and understandably you call it a stupid system. Now when a criminal is brought to justice with a little tweak of the system, you all go ape shit and pull out the tin foil hats. Look at it from the judge's point of view: the now-proven-guilty man has evidence against him, who is the judge going to punish?[/QUOTE]
if you let fishermen fish with dynamite they'll probably catch their prey, does that mean the negative impact of this method should be ignored altogether?
and no, we aren't hypocrites. you can call a system flawed while still maintaining that some parts are valid. its the same reason people can say the 2nd ammendment is a flaw, but still believe in freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=Stupideye;34069072]This feels incredibly Orwellian, why don't they put a camera in every room of your home? If you aren't doing anything illegal then you mustn't have anything to hide?[/QUOTE]
Orwell didn't mean it like that, it meant that the government is spying on EVERYONE. This is only dealing with people of interest that are being investigated.
[QUOTE=clockroach;34069120]Actually that's more representative of your arguments. Mine were "here's why you're wrong."
You literally responded to one of my comments with "semantics makes everything better" when I stated the basic principle of what the FBI does every day.[/QUOTE]
do you have a learning disability or did you sincerely not grasp that when i said "semantics makes everything better" i was referring to you replacing the word "stalking" with "investigating" and expecting it to be a cohesive argument
you've made your points and i've made mine, i'm referring to when you said this: "Your arguments aren't arguments at all"
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34069125]Orwell didn't mean it like that, it meant that the government is spying on EVERYONE. This is only dealing with people of interest that are being investigated.[/QUOTE]
this just in everyone is a person of interest enjoy your cameras
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069085]Before you guys flip a shit over this, which it looks like half of you already have, remember that this guy is a criminal. They used this to bring justice to a criminal.
You guys are hypocrites: when some criminal gets away with a crime because of some silly law, you're all in outrage and understandably you call it a stupid system. Now when a criminal is brought to justice with a little tweak of the system, you all go ape shit and pull out the tin foil hats. Look at it from the judge's point of view: the now-proven-guilty man has evidence against him, who is the judge going to punish?[/QUOTE]
And to add to this, they don't really care that much about you. As important as you may feel, they really don't give a shit if you go to walmart/tesco on a Sunday. So even if you're completely innocent, why would you care?
Someone used the argument of "then why not let them put cameras in our house?"
That is entirely different
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069085]Before you guys flip a shit over this, which it looks like half of you already have, remember that this guy is a criminal. They used this to bring justice to a criminal.
You guys are hypocrites: when some criminal gets away with a crime because of some silly law, you're all in outrage and understandably you call it a stupid system. Now when a criminal is brought to justice with a little tweak of the system, you all go ape shit and pull out the tin foil hats. Look at it from the judge's point of view: the now-proven-guilty man has evidence against him, who is the judge going to punish?[/QUOTE]
I'd rather let a criminal go free than violate the rights of innocent people
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069124]if you let fishermen fish with dynamite they'll probably catch their prey, does that mean the negative impact of this method should be ignored altogether?[/QUOTE]
The negative impact of finding out where you drive oh the horror
You aren't important
If they collect data it will be aggregate, unless you're special in which case you probably deserve some guy to watch where you drive
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069154]do you have a learning disability or did you sincerely not grasp that when i said "semantics makes everything better" i was referring to you replacing the word "stalking" with "investigating" and expecting it to be a cohesive argument
you've made your points and i've made mine, i'm referring to when you said this: "Your arguments aren't arguments at all"
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
this just in everyone is a person of interest enjoy your cameras[/QUOTE]
The FBI investigates criminals. CRIMINALS. That's why they're allowed to do stuff a regular citizen cannot. They have to in order to do their job. It was a cohesive argument, you fuck. An intelligent person would understand it. And semantics is important, you idiot, it's why bills are heavily reviewed and redrafted.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069154]do you have a learning disability or did you sincerely not grasp that when i said "semantics makes everything better" i was referring to you replacing the word "stalking" with "investigating" and expecting it to be a cohesive argument
you've made your points and i've made mine, i'm referring to when you said this: "Your arguments aren't arguments at all"
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
this just in everyone is a person of interest enjoy your cameras[/QUOTE]
Yeah well that's not happening yet fuckwit, so till then youre wrong.
They've been allowed to do this since the patriot act. Most cars come built in with the systems anyway.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34069240]Yeah well that's not happening yet fuckwit, so till then youre wrong.[/QUOTE]
wow man nice!!!!
i never thought of it that way, you've really opened my eyes!
your statement isn't ignorant or evasive at all!!
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=clockroach;34069199]The FBI investigates criminals. CRIMINALS. That's why they're allowed to do stuff a regular citizen cannot. They have to in order to do their job. It was a cohesive argument, you fuck. An intelligent person would understand it. And semantics is important, you idiot, it's why bills are heavily reviewed and redrafted.[/QUOTE]
saying that fbi agents dont stalk someone as opposed to investigating them is just changing the word to sound more acceptable even though they carry the same implications and effects
feel free to address the post i made asking why they cant just get a warrant in the first place, then again i suppose name calling and word twisting is a bit more fun so you'll probably end up sticking to that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.