A long time ago, in the late 90's to be exact, three friends sat drinking beers on my deck, examining a copy of the Bill of Rights, and wondering how it had all gone South. We each adopted whatever amendment we felt to be in the most danger and have the most meaning to us. I took the second, John took the 4th, and Jen took the first.
I'm thinking these days, having won the core of the 2nd, John might be needing some help. I haven't heard from him in years.
I know what I'd do after reading this... give it to em in a ziploc bag, in as many "smithereen" sized pieces as I can get it into. It's not billed as a licensing requirement, and it's attached to my property without my knowledge or consent, therefore I have the right to treat it as litter.
that's be interference with an official investigation, destruction of government property, and probably a host of other charges they can bring.
And they'll make them stick too. If they can't, just call "patriot act" and you loose all your rights as a terror suspect.
Just take one of the spark plug wires loose from the spark plug, attach it to an appropriate place on the "device" and run the car for a few minutes. I'm pretty sure it won't work after that and it'd be pretty hard to prove a thing.
"The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the undercarriage. But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people’s curtilage."
Remember, they are tracking where the device is, so the tracking should not end at the location of your anvil. Take it somewhere else, beat it to pieces there, and leave the parts in a trash can at a convenience store.
"He has excited insurrections..." Declaration of Independence. Now, our government is doing the same thing, from Congress, through the Presidency, to the judges.
I saw a bumper sticker that said. "Tea parties are for children. Grow up." Last tea party we had, we did grow up. We started shooting the bastards. Apparently, that's what they want now.
BTW, I like that attaching it to a garbage truck, Dj. Or, how about a transcontinental semi?
I didn't intend to cast aspersions on you, IA, but it strikes me that we're being forced into the mold that the Left accuses us of wanting, while the Left unconsciously (at least I hope it's unconscious) lives in that mold on a daily basis. The 10:10 ad, the Audi "Green Police" Superbowl ad, etc. are just the most recent unmistakeable indicators of the Left's modus operandi.
Rock. Hard place.
But as was noted above, no one wants to learn that they went "over the top" alone - "thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."
So...we get the "random kook," ala The Ballad of Carl Drega, who is nothing more than a man (or woman) who's had enough of that situation cast upon them.
And another thing, I don't give a damn about the image (if I may use that term) that may be cast on me about that, "being forced into the mold that the left accuses us of wanting," since it's nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
With this, they've clearly abdicated any sort of moral grounds, and I am completely absolved of any guilt in these situations, the law be damned.
Again, as Rand said, "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." And we've seen far too much as to whom makes those laws. BTW, Kevin, I don't want my attitude of this situation to reflect, in any way, that I have any malice toward you.
When it comes to "attach it to _____".... I live on the gulf coast, I know too many hunters. I could probably get it attached to a nutria rat if I called the right people. Or a gator.
If I wanted to be lazy I could hand it to a longshoreman and have it go on a cruise to Africa.
I think most of you missed the part about how that was an outdated tracker, and that the newer stuff is wired straight to your car. First, you're not just sticking it on something else. Second, they're actually using electricity produced from the gasoline that you bought in order to track you without your knowledge. They're effectively charging you for your own surveillance.
But it's fair to spread that among all the taxpayers, because we all benefit equally from that person not being able to commit crime, and from others being wary of committing too large a crime, in order to avoid the death penalty themselves.
Legend has it that a young person who at one time was employed by a 4 letter agency now produces devices that can do things like fry radar guns, GPS devices within a certain raduis ect......
I'm just sayin.
But...but...how will I justify my paranoia? Actually I made a gps/cell phone jamming device just to see if it was possible based off a 'commercial' one a friend purchased (DealExtreme, FYI) and it is remarkably easy, and works extremely well for a range of about 15 yards @ 360 degrees...turn it off and signal pops back in about 5-10 seconds. Probably not strictly legal everywhere, but then the federales tagging your car isn't either.
"Probably not strictly legal everywhere, but then the federales tagging your car isn't either."
To quote one senior administration official: "I believe there is very little the federal government cannot do".
They've legalised pretty much everything, as long as it's them doing it. The wonders of being the ones to both write and execute the law and determine what it means.
I would be more interested in finding out if my car is transmitting a signal than I would blocking it. One can do all kinds of things with electronic surveilance devices if you know they are there. A GPS tracker does no good if there isn't a way to offload the data by remote, i.e. phone home.
Jamming the GPS signal is a brute force method that has it's own drawbacks.
Detecting a gps signal is a simple matter of using a gps enabled device and some programming. There are iPhone and Android apps for it. Other than that anything that detects wide bands of wireless signals over short range (say 5 feet) would serve. GPS 1 us about 1.023MHz, so you only need an AM receiver on 1.023/2.046/3.069 MHz, or pretty much anything designed to scan for transmitting frequencies. You can get something than scans pretty comprehensively to 6GHz for about 40 bucks. And it makes a neat gadget for those so inclined beyond its sadly practical applications.
I don't have an expectation of privacy when moving in public, myself.
My vehicles have uniquely identifying features (license plates), required by law.
The technology exists right now to recognise those optically and track my presence on any public road they feel like putting a camera on.
But more relevantly, cops don't need a warrant to follow you around in public either; that's neither a search nor a seizure, is it?
If not, why is automating that a problem, legally?
If this is to be stopped, what's needed is a constitutional amendment to prohibit it, because just as the Internet lets anyone speak cheaply and completely anonymously in a way almost incomprehensible in 1776, modern technology lets one do what boils down to "follow someone around on the roads" in a way equally incomprehensible to the Founders.
And since "freedom of the press" quite reasonably also means "freedom of the internet", I can't see any logical, Constitutional reason to imagine that "it's okay to follow you around on foot or horseback" does not also mean "it's okay to record where you go in realtime without literally following you".
Just as Kozinski says - one tends to expand rights one wants, and not powers one dislikes. It's just as inconsistent to do it in the opposite direction as the other guy, though.
(GPS jamming?
Very, very rude at best, since it'll bother neighboring cars who might be using GPS receivers for something useful.
And of course very, very illegal.
The FCC doesn't approve of anyone jamming anything. (47 USC 302a(b).)
"But more relevantly, cops don't need a warrant to follow you around in public either; that's neither a search nor a seizure, is it?"
No, that's a strawman. Cops don't have to do things TO your vehicle and/or IN your vehicle to follow it, do they? After all ...
"My vehicles have uniquely identifying features (license plates), required by law."
... and so cops, being generally intelligent, could follow you without having to modify your vehicle, couldn't they? After all ...
"I don't have an expectation of privacy when moving in public, myself."
If you're in a public place and you expect no privacy therein, then let them follow you in their own vehicle, or let them stand along the road and watch.
"And since "freedom of the press" quite reasonably also means "freedom of the internet", I can't see any logical, Constitutional reason to imagine that "it's okay to follow you around on foot or horseback" does not also mean "it's okay to record where you go in realtime without literally following you"."
And that's another strawman. The question is whether or not cops ought to have authority to get into your vehicle, and/or modify your vehicle, and/or mount something to your vehicle, all without your knowledge or permission and without obtaining a warrant to do so. That has nothing whatever to do with freedom of the press, or with the internet.
Consider the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Since mounting a tracking device in, on, or to your vehicle is neither a search nor a seizure, the cops cannot obtain a warrant to do so, as any such warrant cannot particularly describe "the persons or things to be siezed". The cops are not there to "sieze" anything; they are there to leave something behind, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, as I read it.
It's not the tracking that's unconstitutional, but the penetration of private property (thus, tresspassing) in order to attach the device to your car.
Of course they could always claim to have put it there while it was parked on a public street, but they've taken the easy way out and just changed the law to allow them to trespass and invade your property whenever they want for whatever reason without seeking a court order first.
"It's not the tracking that's unconstitutional, but the penetration of private property (thus, tresspassing) in order to attach the device to your car.
"Of course they could always claim to have put it there while it was parked on a public street, ..."
It doesn't matter where it is parked, what matters is that it is your private property. As I quoted above, the Fourth Amendment states that you have the right to be secure in your effects, one of which is your vehicle, which is NOT secure if the gubmint can, without your permission and without a warrant, penetrate your private property and mount a tracking device on it, or in it, or to it.
"Sure you can have it back. Right after you tell me what I'm suspected of, that you feel the need to track me. Also, show me proof of ownership of said device. Otherwise, f*** off."
Keep poking the dog, and sooner or later it WILL bite, no matter how docile it was to start off with. And then it'll all be the dog's fault, of course.
The "Good" ones cover for the "Bad" ones. Where do you draw the line? We hung "Good" Germans who were only "following the orders" at Nuremburg along with the Creatures that gave the orders. Until I see "Good" Cops locking up the "Bad" Cops, I am going to assume they are on the same team, because They are.
I hate to say this, because I have several good friends who are cops... but on the other hand, I've said this to every single one of them more than once.
Either the cops are subject to exactly the same rules as the rest of us, and their brothers in uniform are just as likely to bust them for _____ as they are any of us.... or they're just another gang of thugs.
"Oh, so it is expensive, huh... Let me go get it... Oh, whoops, was that me dropping it off my second story balcony onto the hard concrete beneath? Oh darn, I am just so clumsy some days. Do you think you will be able to put it back together?"
As soon as I had figured out what it was (which would have been shortly after peeling it off my car - not many things look like that and are used in that way), the device in question would have... forcibly deviated from its mission parameters. Then, if the FBI showed up and demanded it back, I would have plead ignorance of their ownership (after all, I doubt they put, "If found, please return to FBI Field Office PQZ" on its side), claimed that I feared someone was stalking me, and explained that I dealt with the device accordingly.
The government lawyers use the 'no expectation of privacy' excuse because the public can see you when you are traveling. Well the Fourth Amendment begins: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,"
How secure in your person would you feel if someone was stalking you?
Speaking of warrentless police searches, have you seen this
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0929/Feds-radiating-Americans-Mobile-X-ray-vans-hit-US-streets
Putting it on the garbage truck, or the interstate semi are good ideas. Don't forget buses, taxis, rental vehicles (local and cross country), barges, containers, airplanes, and trains.
I think glueing it to the top of a U-haul type cargo truck (NOT a van) would be particularly good (of course, I'm not advocating doing something illegal). They tend to wander around the local area for some indeterminate amount of time, until they get rented for a cross country trip. Then they wander about the new location for an indeterminate amount of time, until they get rented for another cross country trip. And so on, and so forth.
I also like the "Prove it belongs to the FBI" idea. It is said that possession is 9/10's of the law, and it might be interesting to see how the FBI gets it back, especially if you've given it to your lawyer for safe keeping. Wouldn't anything the FBI left on private property be considered "abandoned", and thereby subject to "salvage" by whoever finds it? Particularly when it was left there without the knowledge or permission of the private property owner?
I also wonder about just sending it back to them, with a bill for "recovery of valuable government property", like a salvage fee.
I suppose you could combine these last two. Find an amenable lawyer, give it to him/her, explain what it is, and tell him you'd like him to return it to the FBI as "salvaged abandoned government property" and ask him to demand a salvage fee (tell him he can keep the entire fee, since we're mainly interested in annoying the FBI with this). Attorney-client privilege should shield you from being identified by him, and the FBI wouldn't know if you removed it, or it fell off and was found by the attorney, or if it was removed by your mechanic who then gave it to the attorney, etc. I am sure the serial number would allow them to determine that it was the one they put on YOUR car, but that won't help them prove who removed it, and the lawyer doesn't need to tell them. I think this is what I would do.
But as someone who's parents worked for a railroad, and a former owner of a private airplane, I recommend that you do NOT put it on either of them without permission. Trespassing on RR property is a federal offense, as is tampering with an airplane (even a privately owned one).
Well now, if it's not improper for the cops to stick a tracker on a car, without a warrant, then it's not improper for a private citizen to stick a tracker on a couple of cars...say, those belonging to some justices of the supreme court, or the ninth circus? Pity that it would be expensive, but maybe, just maybe, a judge might have an epiphany at seeing everywhere HIS car had been, posted on the web (with neat google-earth pictures, natch!).
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/10/were-going-to-make-this-much-more.html (52 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
A long time ago, in the late 90's to be exact, three friends sat drinking beers on my deck, examining a copy of the Bill of Rights, and wondering how it had all gone South. We each adopted whatever amendment we felt to be in the most danger and have the most meaning to us. I took the second, John took the 4th, and Jen took the first.
I'm thinking these days, having won the core of the 2nd, John might be needing some help. I haven't heard from him in years.
I'm pretty sure I know what the next guy who finds one won't do....
I know what I'd do after reading this... give it to em in a ziploc bag, in as many "smithereen" sized pieces as I can get it into. It's not billed as a licensing requirement, and it's attached to my property without my knowledge or consent, therefore I have the right to treat it as litter.
that's be interference with an official investigation, destruction of government property, and probably a host of other charges they can bring.
And they'll make them stick too. If they can't, just call "patriot act" and you loose all your rights as a terror suspect.
Just take one of the spark plug wires loose from the spark plug, attach it to an appropriate place on the "device" and run the car for a few minutes. I'm pretty sure it won't work after that and it'd be pretty hard to prove a thing.
Oh, gosh, you had a device attached to my car? It must have fallen off. We have some really big potholes round here.
An unknown device attached to my car? It's a bomb! Call the police and let them blow it up....
Bad idea, they'll blow the whole car up.
Yep, Kozinski can definitely write:
"The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the undercarriage. But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people’s curtilage."
A "Bill of Rights"? What's that?
Yeah, I almost quoted that too, but I thought I'd leave it as a gift for those who read the whole thing!
Word for the day: micturate
8-)
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
Remember, they are tracking where the device is, so the tracking should not end at the location of your anvil. Take it somewhere else, beat it to pieces there, and leave the parts in a trash can at a convenience store.
Or, just attach it to a garbage truck.
They would NOT gotten that device back whole! That, I can guarantee.
The guy should have sold it on ebay. Let the feds follow a mail truck.
"He has excited insurrections..." Declaration of Independence. Now, our government is doing the same thing, from Congress, through the Presidency, to the judges.
I saw a bumper sticker that said. "Tea parties are for children. Grow up." Last tea party we had, we did grow up. We started shooting the bastards. Apparently, that's what they want now.
BTW, I like that attaching it to a garbage truck, Dj. Or, how about a transcontinental semi?
"Sorry, I shot it. You still want it back?"
The fight is being thrust upon us, Kevin, if I hadn't made it clear enough yesterday.
We simply have NO CHOICE in this.
Trouble is making its damnedest try at finding us.
Remember what Rand said about laws and criminals?
I didn't intend to cast aspersions on you, IA, but it strikes me that we're being forced into the mold that the Left accuses us of wanting, while the Left unconsciously (at least I hope it's unconscious) lives in that mold on a daily basis. The 10:10 ad, the Audi "Green Police" Superbowl ad, etc. are just the most recent unmistakeable indicators of the Left's modus operandi.
Rock. Hard place.
But as was noted above, no one wants to learn that they went "over the top" alone - "thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."
So...we get the "random kook," ala The Ballad of Carl Drega, who is nothing more than a man (or woman) who's had enough of that situation cast upon them.
And another thing, I don't give a damn about the image (if I may use that term) that may be cast on me about that, "being forced into the mold that the left accuses us of wanting," since it's nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
With this, they've clearly abdicated any sort of moral grounds, and I am completely absolved of any guilt in these situations, the law be damned.
Again, as Rand said, "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
And we've seen far too much as to whom makes those laws.
BTW, Kevin, I don't want my attitude of this situation to reflect, in any way, that I have any malice toward you.
Have you read Three Felonies a Day? It's on my future reading list.
When it comes to "attach it to _____".... I live on the gulf coast, I know too many hunters. I could probably get it attached to a nutria rat if I called the right people. Or a gator.
If I wanted to be lazy I could hand it to a longshoreman and have it go on a cruise to Africa.
I think most of you missed the part about how that was an outdated tracker, and that the newer stuff is wired straight to your car. First, you're not just sticking it on something else. Second, they're actually using electricity produced from the gasoline that you bought in order to track you without your knowledge. They're effectively charging you for your own surveillance.
Next up: Charging the families of execution victims for the cost of the bullet and cleanup!
We already do that, and you know it, it's just divided up amongst the general taxpayers.
Ya know, it's just paying your "fair share."
But it's fair to spread that among all the taxpayers, because we all benefit equally from that person not being able to commit crime, and from others being wary of committing too large a crime, in order to avoid the death penalty themselves.
Legend has it that a young person who at one time was employed by a 4 letter agency now produces devices that can do things like fry radar guns, GPS devices within a certain raduis ect......
I'm just sayin.
I reiterate my previous (deleted for whatever reason) point. They sell things that block gps signals all over. Not hard to come by and not expensive.
It probably wasn't deleted. Echo is still pretty buggy. Sometimes I have problems posting comments, too.
But...but...how will I justify my paranoia? Actually I made a gps/cell phone jamming device just to see if it was possible based off a 'commercial' one a friend purchased (DealExtreme, FYI) and it is remarkably easy, and works extremely well for a range of about 15 yards @ 360 degrees...turn it off and signal pops back in about 5-10 seconds. Probably not strictly legal everywhere, but then the federales tagging your car isn't either.
"Probably not strictly legal everywhere, but then the federales tagging your car isn't either."
To quote one senior administration official: "I believe there is very little the federal government cannot do".
They've legalised pretty much everything, as long as it's them doing it. The wonders of being the ones to both write and execute the law and determine what it means.
I would be more interested in finding out if my car is transmitting a signal than I would blocking it. One can do all kinds of things with electronic surveilance devices if you know they are there. A GPS tracker does no good if there isn't a way to offload the data by remote, i.e. phone home.
Jamming the GPS signal is a brute force method that has it's own drawbacks.
Heck, OnStar creeps me out. And people actually pay for that!
Detecting a gps signal is a simple matter of using a gps enabled device and some programming. There are iPhone and Android apps for it. Other than that anything that detects wide bands of wireless signals over short range (say 5 feet) would serve. GPS 1 us about 1.023MHz, so you only need an AM receiver on 1.023/2.046/3.069 MHz, or pretty much anything designed to scan for transmitting frequencies. You can get something than scans pretty comprehensively to 6GHz for about 40 bucks. And it makes a neat gadget for those so inclined beyond its sadly practical applications.
One word: Ebay.
I don't have an expectation of privacy when moving in public, myself.
My vehicles have uniquely identifying features (license plates), required by law.
The technology exists right now to recognise those optically and track my presence on any public road they feel like putting a camera on.
But more relevantly, cops don't need a warrant to follow you around in public either; that's neither a search nor a seizure, is it?
If not, why is automating that a problem, legally?
If this is to be stopped, what's needed is a constitutional amendment to prohibit it, because just as the Internet lets anyone speak cheaply and completely anonymously in a way almost incomprehensible in 1776, modern technology lets one do what boils down to "follow someone around on the roads" in a way equally incomprehensible to the Founders.
And since "freedom of the press" quite reasonably also means "freedom of the internet", I can't see any logical, Constitutional reason to imagine that "it's okay to follow you around on foot or horseback" does not also mean "it's okay to record where you go in realtime without literally following you".
Just as Kozinski says - one tends to expand rights one wants, and not powers one dislikes. It's just as inconsistent to do it in the opposite direction as the other guy, though.
(GPS jamming?
Very, very rude at best, since it'll bother neighboring cars who might be using GPS receivers for something useful.
And of course very, very illegal.
The FCC doesn't approve of anyone jamming anything. (47 USC 302a(b).)
"But more relevantly, cops don't need a warrant to follow you around in public either; that's neither a search nor a seizure, is it?"
No, that's a strawman. Cops don't have to do things TO your vehicle and/or IN your vehicle to follow it, do they? After all ...
"My vehicles have uniquely identifying features (license plates), required by law."
... and so cops, being generally intelligent, could follow you without having to modify your vehicle, couldn't they? After all ...
"I don't have an expectation of privacy when moving in public, myself."
If you're in a public place and you expect no privacy therein, then let them follow you in their own vehicle, or let them stand along the road and watch.
"And since "freedom of the press" quite reasonably also means "freedom of the internet", I can't see any logical, Constitutional reason to imagine that "it's okay to follow you around on foot or horseback" does not also mean "it's okay to record where you go in realtime without literally following you"."
And that's another strawman. The question is whether or not cops ought to have authority to get into your vehicle, and/or modify your vehicle, and/or mount something to your vehicle, all without your knowledge or permission and without obtaining a warrant to do so. That has nothing whatever to do with freedom of the press, or with the internet.
Consider the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Since mounting a tracking device in, on, or to your vehicle is neither a search nor a seizure, the cops cannot obtain a warrant to do so, as any such warrant cannot particularly describe "the persons or things to be siezed". The cops are not there to "sieze" anything; they are there to leave something behind, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, as I read it.
It's not the tracking that's unconstitutional, but the penetration of private property (thus, tresspassing) in order to attach the device to your car.
Of course they could always claim to have put it there while it was parked on a public street, but they've taken the easy way out and just changed the law to allow them to trespass and invade your property whenever they want for whatever reason without seeking a court order first.
"It's not the tracking that's unconstitutional, but the penetration of private property (thus, tresspassing) in order to attach the device to your car.
"Of course they could always claim to have put it there while it was parked on a public street, ..."
It doesn't matter where it is parked, what matters is that it is your private property. As I quoted above, the Fourth Amendment states that you have the right to be secure in your effects, one of which is your vehicle, which is NOT secure if the gubmint can, without your permission and without a warrant, penetrate your private property and mount a tracking device on it, or in it, or to it.
"Sure you can have it back. Right after you tell me what I'm suspected of, that you feel the need to track me. Also, show me proof of ownership of said device. Otherwise, f*** off."
Keep poking the dog, and sooner or later it WILL bite, no matter how docile it was to start off with. And then it'll all be the dog's fault, of course.
And people say it's wrong to hate and distrust policemen...
This is why I thank God every time he sends another of them to hell where they belong.
I SINCERELY hope that's not supposed to be a blanket statement.
The "Good" ones cover for the "Bad" ones. Where do you draw the line? We hung "Good" Germans who were only "following the orders" at Nuremburg along with the Creatures that gave the orders. Until I see "Good" Cops locking up the "Bad" Cops, I am going to assume they are on the same team, because They are.
I hate to say this, because I have several good friends who are cops... but on the other hand, I've said this to every single one of them more than once.
Either the cops are subject to exactly the same rules as the rest of us, and their brothers in uniform are just as likely to bust them for _____ as they are any of us.... or they're just another gang of thugs.
There really is no middle ground.
"Oh, so it is expensive, huh... Let me go get it... Oh, whoops, was that me dropping it off my second story balcony onto the hard concrete beneath? Oh darn, I am just so clumsy some days. Do you think you will be able to put it back together?"
As soon as I had figured out what it was (which would have been shortly after peeling it off my car - not many things look like that and are used in that way), the device in question would have... forcibly deviated from its mission parameters. Then, if the FBI showed up and demanded it back, I would have plead ignorance of their ownership (after all, I doubt they put, "If found, please return to FBI Field Office PQZ" on its side), claimed that I feared someone was stalking me, and explained that I dealt with the device accordingly.
And then I would probably be finding a lawyer...
Thank God the 9th Cicuit is the most reversed circuit in the country. Let's hope this one gets appealed.
Who do you expect to reverse this on SCotUS? I'd say that Thomas is the only reliable vote for limiting govt power. It takes 4 more - any suggestions?
The government lawyers use the 'no expectation of privacy' excuse because the public can see you when you are traveling. Well the Fourth Amendment begins: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,"
How secure in your person would you feel if someone was stalking you?
Speaking of warrentless police searches, have you seen this
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0929/Feds-radiating-Americans-Mobile-X-ray-vans-hit-US-streets
Putting it on the garbage truck, or the interstate semi are good ideas. Don't forget buses, taxis, rental vehicles (local and cross country), barges, containers, airplanes, and trains.
I think glueing it to the top of a U-haul type cargo truck (NOT a van) would be particularly good (of course, I'm not advocating doing something illegal). They tend to wander around the local area for some indeterminate amount of time, until they get rented for a cross country trip. Then they wander about the new location for an indeterminate amount of time, until they get rented for another cross country trip. And so on, and so forth.
I also like the "Prove it belongs to the FBI" idea. It is said that possession is 9/10's of the law, and it might be interesting to see how the FBI gets it back, especially if you've given it to your lawyer for safe keeping. Wouldn't anything the FBI left on private property be considered "abandoned", and thereby subject to "salvage" by whoever finds it? Particularly when it was left there without the knowledge or permission of the private property owner?
I also wonder about just sending it back to them, with a bill for "recovery of valuable government property", like a salvage fee.
I suppose you could combine these last two. Find an amenable lawyer, give it to him/her, explain what it is, and tell him you'd like him to return it to the FBI as "salvaged abandoned government property" and ask him to demand a salvage fee (tell him he can keep the entire fee, since we're mainly interested in annoying the FBI with this). Attorney-client privilege should shield you from being identified by him, and the FBI wouldn't know if you removed it, or it fell off and was found by the attorney, or if it was removed by your mechanic who then gave it to the attorney, etc. I am sure the serial number would allow them to determine that it was the one they put on YOUR car, but that won't help them prove who removed it, and the lawyer doesn't need to tell them. I think this is what I would do.
But as someone who's parents worked for a railroad, and a former owner of a private airplane, I recommend that you do NOT put it on either of them without permission. Trespassing on RR property is a federal offense, as is tampering with an airplane (even a privately owned one).
Well now, if it's not improper for the cops to stick a tracker on a car, without a warrant, then it's not improper for a private citizen to stick a tracker on a couple of cars...say, those belonging to some justices of the supreme court, or the ninth circus? Pity that it would be expensive, but maybe, just maybe, a judge might have an epiphany at seeing everywhere HIS car had been, posted on the web (with neat google-earth pictures, natch!).
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>