FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants
149 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069476]uh yeah thats stalking
glad you're catching on mate[/QUOTE]
Then by saying that, all investigators are criminals. Your logic is extremely flawed.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34069547]Again I have to tell you that [B]They do god damn research before they would bug anything[/B]. Bugging is last resort since it is taking someone's privacy. They even say that on their site.[/QUOTE]
oh thank goodness their website is so reassuring
if they do so much research why the fuck cant they get a warrant
seriously its like you have some sort of mental block that completely prevents you from telling me why they can't get a warrant
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34069575]Then by saying that, all investigators are criminals. Your logic is extremely flawed.[/QUOTE]
[sp]warrant[/sp]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069568]i would assume if they weren't functionally retarded they would have a warrant out for the arrest of a man that committed mass fraud but apparently in your universe this is impossible[/QUOTE]
Ah ha a warrant so THEY CAN DO EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME THING AS THEY ALREADY DID
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069584]Ah ha a warrant so THEY CAN DO EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME THING AS THEY ALREADY DID[/QUOTE]
sorry is this supposed to be your argument against warrants
because saying "things will be exactly the same! (except with less errors)" is kind of helping me
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069576]oh thank goodness their website is so reassuring
if they do so much research why the fuck cant they get a warrant
seriously its like you have some sort of mental block that completely prevents you from telling me why they can't get a warrant[/QUOTE]
Oh my god you idiot, they didn't get one because they didn't need to get one. It's not like they tried to get a warrant and were denied so they did it anyway. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to do everything. They need warrants for arrests and for searches and seizures.
-[[B]REMOVED[/B]]
[QUOTE=clockroach;34069608]Oh my god you idiot, they didn't get one because they didn't need to get one. It's not like they tried to get a warrant and were denied so they did it anyway. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to do everything. They need warrants for arrests and for searches and seizures.[/QUOTE]
in case you havent noticed, i have a problem with that
i hold the bizarre opinion that the govt should have some form of legal verification and proof before they can treat an american citizen like a criminal, but thats just me
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069632]and proof[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to tell me a warrant is proof? :v:
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069657]Are you trying to tell me a warrant is proof? :v:[/QUOTE]
it requires proof to obtain, unless you've been altering that law as well
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069657]Are you trying to tell me a warrant is proof? :v:[/QUOTE]
yeah, it pretty much is
[editline] jan [/editline]
do you even know what a warrant is
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34069519]I'm agreeing with Syntax...[/QUOTE]
[I]Dear [B]God...[/B][/I]
/offtopic
Topics like this are hard to find an answer to, because there is no absolute right answer.
On one hand, removing the ability for investigators to [I]investigate[/I] leads means they have NO way of gathering evidence against a suspect.
On the other, I really fucking hate the idea that they can essentially just come up and *boop* a GPS transponder to my car.
However, *boop*ing a suspect's vehicle when they aren't looking will let them track them easier and gather evidence for getting a full warrant to proceed to an arrest or a search of property and is easier to use as the only information that can be gathered from GPS data is the location of the transponder.
Having to place a physical transponder is LOADS better than having one [I]embedded in your car[/I] (I.E. Onstar or the like) because they can't just beep boopitty bop and see where anyone with Onstar is located. Granted they can get a warrant and do that [I]anyway[/I] but still.
Onstar is fucking terrifying, by the way.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34069717][I]Dear [B]God...[/B][/I]
/offtopic
Topics like this are hard to find an answer to, because there is no absolute right answer.
On one hand, removing the ability for investigators to [I]investigate[/I] leads [B]means they have NO way of gathering evidence against a suspect[/B].
On the other, I really fucking hate the idea that they can essentially just come up and *boop* a GPS transponder to my car.
However, *boop*ing a suspect's vehicle when they aren't looking will let them track them easier and gather evidence for getting a full warrant to proceed to an arrest or a search of property and is easier to use as the only information that can be gathered from GPS data is the location of the transponder.
Having to place a physical transponder is LOADS better than having one [I]embedded in your car[/I] (I.E. Onstar or the like) because they can't just beep boopitty bop and see where anyone with Onstar is located. Granted they can get a warrant and do that [I]anyway[/I] but still.
Onstar is fucking terrifying, by the way.[/QUOTE]
if there's no possible way to investigate a subject other than tracking his every movement how did he become a suspect in the first place?
[QUOTE=Trumple;34069657]Are you trying to tell me a warrant is proof? :v:[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, life is WAYYYY different from DarkRP.
Officers can't just /warrent Trumple stupidfuckingshit and then bust down your house. They have to build a case and then present it to their boss or a judge and THEY have to like it and THEN you have a warrant.
[editline]5th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069738]if there's no possible way to investigate a subject other than tracking his every movement how did he become a suspect in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Exactly! If we're going that far, then why do we have a group of people who's job it is to investigate potential criminals?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069576]oh thank goodness their website is so reassuring
if they do so much research why the fuck cant they get a warrant
seriously its like you have some sort of mental block that completely prevents you from telling me why they can't get a warrant
[sp]warrant[/sp][/QUOTE]
I have never in my life heard of a warrant to follow someone, and there is no such thing.
[quote=Article]In order to obtain a search warrant, police must first have probable cause or a reason to believe that someone has committed a crime. That reasoning must then be noted and given to a judge or magistrate who then determines if a warrant will be issued. The judge or magistrate must agree on the probable cause.
Warrants need to be specific. Police need to know exactly what they are searching for and where they plan to search for it as a result of years of case precedence. If police do collect evidence not specified in their search warrant or search an area not specified in their warrant, it could taint the case.[/quote]
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45819258/ns/local_news-fort_wayne_in/t/obtaining-warrants-how-police-do-it/#.TwZVoPnug7Q[/url]
just throwing this out here
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069738]if there's no possible way to investigate a subject other than tracking his every movement how did he become a suspect in the first place?[/QUOTE]
You say something stupid to someone.
If Joe-bob from down the road passes by and says "im planning to blow up the whitehouse" then you report that, he becomes a suspect.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34069762]Believe it or not, life is WAYYYY different from DarkRP.
Officers can't just /warrent Trumple stupidfuckingshit and then bust down your house. They have to build a case and then present it to their boss or a judge and THEY have to like it and THEN you have a warrant.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but what reason would they have of *bopping* the unit on the car if they didn't have a good reason anyway? To make jokes about how often Dave goes on a shopping spree?
In regards to your previous message of *bopping*, I can understand that too. It's unlikely they would have enough evidence WITHOUT having the GPS unit in place in the first place. It's a catch 22 system, but in the end no one would have died from *bopping* said unit and testing the waters.
But anyway, we're arguing over a system that doesn't fully cover this area, and until it does argument is going to go in circles, as it has done.
On the one hand, I agree with people saying they'd like to not be treated like criminals for no good reason, on the other hand I think there is a limit of "reasonable belief" within which you can say "well okay, the negatives far outweigh the possible positives, and I'm pretty sure this is our guy, let's do it"
It comes down to judgement, and that is what judges do. There is no predefined right or wrong here and that's where this problem arises.
[QUOTE=Cmx;34069849]You say something stupid to someone.
If Joe-bob from down the road passes by and says "im planning to blow up the whitehouse" then you report that, he becomes a suspect.[/QUOTE]
But if investigators cannot investigate, then what the hell are they supposed to do with that report?
"Hmmm. That guy said he wanted to blow up the whitehouse."
'But we aren't allowed to do anything to try and prove or disprove it'
"Oh well. Coffee later?"
'Fuck yeah. Ima investigate me some Starbucks girls.'
-[[B]REMOVED[/B]]
[QUOTE=Suff;34069970]According to Kopomi; such a statement would be "exercising his constitutional right to free speech".[/QUOTE]
And reporting it would be the other's use of his same rights. We have an investigative group of people on the off-chance that he was serious.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;34069903]But if investigators cannot investigate, then what the hell are they supposed to do with that report?
"Hmmm. That guy said he wanted to blow up the whitehouse."
'But we aren't allowed to do anything to try and prove or disprove it'
"Oh well. Coffee later?"
'Fuck yeah. Ima investigate me some Starbucks girls.'[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, if they put this on his truck/car and see he is going to a large amount of hardware stores, then they can get the receipts for what he bought and look at the security cameras, or they can find that hes just a normal guy that is just going to the grocery store every once in a while and going to work.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069632]in case you havent noticed, i have a problem with that
i hold the bizarre opinion that the govt should have some form of legal verification and proof before they can treat an american citizen like a criminal, but thats just me[/QUOTE]
I have the bizarre opinion that the FBI shouldn't have to report to pigheaded people like you in order do their job. Investigating someone isn't treating them like a criminal, it's treating them like a suspect. Arresting/searching someone is treating them like a criminal, and for that you DO need a warrant.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34064267]I really doubt that the FBI of all organizations would really abuse this power.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that they have the power to do it. That doesn't pave the way for a very bright future.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34068440]A hunch that could save millions of dollars or people's lives. Why are people caring, if the FBI has a hunch on you, it's mostly based on tons amounts of research and investigation. I think you are confusing the FBI with the police department.[/QUOTE]
Yes, let us get rid of trials too, I mean, someone arrested is obviously guilty right?
They're supposed to have to jump through hoops for a reason, damnit.
-[[B]REMOVED[/B]]
I don't know about you guys, but if I found one of those on my car I would just put it on a different car :v:
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Suff;34079339]You're taking his statement completely out of context. He stated that if you are being investigated by the FBI, then it must be for a reason. In this case; an investigator had performed the appropriate (if not more) level of investigating into the matter and attached a GPS device to a vehicle so they could know his whereabouts. The FBI are investigating a corrupt political figure; why is Facepunch so against any type of authority? You would complain if he did investigate, and complain if he didn't; it's a lose-lose situation for the FBI. You pay them via tax dollars to investigate corruption, criminals, and to look into matters of possible threats; let them do their job. Personally; I believe the FBI should be able to investigate into matters without the constant loops, loopholes and lawyers. It's so alien to me as to why Facepunch opposes the FBI, when they probably have never even seen a FBI investigator.
If a child is abducted; the FBI is always close, and intensely looks into the matter and most often, in cooperation with state authorities, assists in finding the child. Then there's people such as yourself who, after the investigation, look into just how legal it was. [I]Was that agent really justified in kicking that perpetrator[/I]? Who apparently has "rights" as defined by the system, even despite his disregard of rights for others. Then the lawsuits start, the debate begins, the Officer who worked to find the child is fired, and smug individuals such as yourself who believe you know better feel some sense of pride knowing the Officer was removed.[/QUOTE]
I remember a story maybe a year ago where some dude found one of these on his car, while he had done nothing wrong in life, except having family in the middle east that he visited.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34069101]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]
Not really
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.