The Glade 4.0

No. There should be some sort of reasonable suspicion before its done; right now they put this on the guy's car because they already suspected him. Just having it on every car is unnecessary and silly. It also would incur unreasonable expense that would be paid by the taxpayer or the car buyer.

To me, doing this is much like stopping a person on the street because you have reasonable suspicion. You can't just stop a random person for the sheer hell of it, but by the same token you shouldn't need probable cause before you even start investigating.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't see why it has not be inside. It could be externally attached. If they have to enter the vehicle to place it, that should require a warrant.[/quote]

Ah I see, we are talking about different things. I stepped back to the bigger picture that a car is no longer considered private property, I wasn't speaking directly to the electronic surveillance equipment. I agree that if it is recording anything other than location a warrant is absolutely required regardless of where it is placed (inside, outside the vehicle).

Still not sure if I am on-board the kosher train with the whole GPS device in general though.

_________________

A warrant should be required to record location. And, regardless of what DE thinks, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your vehicle. And window tinting has a negligible impact on car safety. The rules are for "plain sight" assistance.

_________________

That is what I had heard as well.

Along the lines of recording your location, again how is that different than a police officer noting your vehicle is parked at XXX on XX/XX/XX @ XX:XXPM? Or when a police officer pulls in to traffic behind you?

I really want to have a problem with this because it feels dirty but I am having a hard time creating a differentiation.

_________________

Because the GPS works on private property where you do have an expectation of privacy, and where surveillance, other than what can be seen from the street, requires a warrant, as it is essentially "searching".

Somehow, I suspect the federal government would have a cow if an officer placed one of these devices on a vehicle used at say, Tonepah and started recording where that vehicle went, how long it stayed, where it stopped, etc.

That said though, I do not believe this is restricted to police. PIs will also place GPS trackers on cars for instances where they are trying to capture proof of adultery in a family court proceeding. Granted, there requirements for the PI license, but since the GPS alternative is being argued by those in support as nothing more than a replacement to physical observation, this same ability should also be allowed by the public.

I reasonable suspicion that local and county police officers routinely break the very same traffic laws for which they issue citations, and are neglegent in their duty by traveling OJ on personal errands while on patrol. Guess now I can prove it without worry.

Hmmm....

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that homes have some kind of special status not confered upon other personal property, but it certainly doesn't come from the 4th Amendment. It makes no distinction between the various kinds of personal property.

I don't necessarily have any problems with "in plain sight" doctrine in general. However, with respect to cars, I submit that passing a law which prohibits window tinting that would obscure the interior of the car from plain sight is no different than passing a law which requires that people's homes be made of glass so that police will be able to see inside without a warrant.

The argument that they need to be able to see if someone inside the vehicle is about to take violent action against them is disingenuous at best. The same conditions would apply when police approach homes and buildings, and yet we don't prohibit fully tinted/reflective windows on buildings and homes, nor require that every room of the house be plainly visible from the exterior. That justification is based on the unsupportable premise that a vehicle, as a private property, somehow has less status under the fourth amendment than a home.

Further, I submit that any law requiring that personal property be made involuntarily open to plain sight is functionally equivalent to a warrantless search.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Exactly Stathol.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Seconded. The only argument I could agree to would be that it is a safety concern to the driver and it's occupants. If you cannot see out of the car it isn't safe to be on the road period, however; fully reflective surfaces would be ok with me (aka a one-way mirror).

_________________

In highschool, I drove a car with what was later made an illegal level of window tinting, and there was no difficulty with visibility while driving, as the windshield cannot be tinted (minus the glare strip at the top that used to be typical in factor cars). Whats more, with polarizing glass, I find these laws less about driver safety, and as Stathol pointed out, more about police visibility.

However, I would make mirrored glass on cars illegal, for the obvious problem the reflective surface would cause other drivers... much akin to laws against using high beams in proximity of other cars.

That's...possibly a valid point. I support the death penalty for automotive designers that create trucks with large, flat, chrome bumpers.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

That seems to be short sighted (no pun intended) as any serious level of tinting is going to impact your view out of your mirrors and checking left/right/blind spots for vehicles/pedestrians at night.

I did not find it to be an issue. However, I also did not state to what degree the windows were tinted, only that the tint level was later made illegal.

And again, with polarizing glass, it becomes a non-issue even for the weak eyed.

This attitude is what you get while waiting for something to slide on what may or may not be a slope that may or may not actually be slippery.


Guilty as charged.

If there comes a criminal case that allows more than gps data to be gathered in this kind of thing without requiring a court order, something that crosses my privacy line, then I'll sharpen the pitchfork and give you a leg up over the castle wall.

Miranda happened in my lifetime, I remember when it was a big deal when it was passed. I'd say things are better now than before.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I can't but feel that your attitude is along the lines of:

Well, the cows aren't out of the barn yet, so I'm not going to worry about it. If the cows ever do get out of the barn, then I'll worry about closing the door.

I think what Khross is getting at is that, this specific instance aside, your attitude is one that has greater consequences in a broader context -- consequences that probably already do have a material effect on you.

It's like raising a child. A child doesn't turn into a brat overnight. An instance of bad parenting may not by itself cause any significant material change in your child's behavior. But if there is a pattern of bad parenting, then the outcome is pretty well inevitable unless the parent can be convinced to turn their parenting around before things get to the point where the child's behavior is truly problematic. By that point, it will be enormously more difficult (if possible at all) to turn things around.

Edit: when I say "you", here, I don't just mean Taskiss. I'm not really trying to single him out; it's just a disposition that I see in a lot of people, and that I find troubling for how it bodes for the future of American politics and the balance between government power and individual liberties.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

No, my attitude stems from the fact my cows don't leave the barn even if the door is open and I don't care about another guys cows in the first place, but the bigger question is, why should we be afraid of an open door?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Wow... that is awesome.

_________________

Yup! And of top of that, there's never been a problem with this for me or anyone I know. Cows seem to be doing pretty good.

But I guess I could get all up and grab a gun... I just figure there needs to be ... oh, something actually happening first.

I'm funny like that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

That's...the most solipsistic outlook I think I've ever heard.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

"Mending Wall" by Robert Frost

_________________

"tinfoil hat" by the paranoid whozits.

You have a single incident, a single data point, and you want to assign a mu to the slope you can't even define 'cause it takes more data points than that.

But don't let that stop you from seeing wisps in the fog. Go, chase, get it out of your system.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This is hardly the only data point. But then, you stated quite plainly just a few posts ago that you don't care about what happens to anyone that isn't "you and yours". It's difficult to see much of anything if you refuse to look beyond the end of your own nose.

Edit:

I'm curious as to whether you actually read the poem or not. I'm not sure why you've taken such a dismissive and hostile attitude towards Shuyung's post. You seem to be just assuming that it must contradict or refute your opinion.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Wait - you all DO realize you're arguing a slippery slope fallacy, right?

'Cause it sounds like you may believe you have a snowball's chance of actually making a point.

This one's a gimme. You go off the reservation, you don't pass go OR collect $200.00, and you're SO far off...

Whether or not I care about the outcome for someone else is an argumentative aside, not something you gain credibility for. You're still needing to show actual damages and all you have is "It COULD be abused"!

And the contents of a poem are relevant how? ... sheesh! Blatantly emotional appeals SHOULD be dismissed ...

That's how many fallacies in these arguments? Come on guys, you can do better.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm arguing that there's a trend in the United States towards increasing government and police power. That's not precisely the same as a "slippery slope", as you mean it (which, in any case, isn't necessarily even a fallacy).

I'm also observing that you have an admittedly narrow perspective. Even if I were to give additional data points (ex. FISA and many other provisions of the patriot act just to name one recent example), you would merely dismiss them as irrelevant because you see no direct, material impact on your personal life and its limited environs.

Finally, with respect to the poem, it has nothing to do with emotional appeal. If you're making that argument, I'm going to have to conclude that you didn't even bother to read it.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Well, yeah, it is. From arguing Maranda to arguing the use of gps data shows a definite increase in rights...the slope ain't. Make them relevant then. We have more rights today than 50 years ago. Knock yourself out, show a downward slope. I'll be here all week, tip your waitress.Before literature can trump logic, one needs be in the mood... should then our moods and not logic dictate what are and aren't rights?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You know what? I'm not having this discussion with you. Have fun.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.