wmw999 2,461 #26 May 11, 2009 QuoteAs kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect.True dat. Which makes it a cheap, easy, less reliable witness. But all you have to do is go to Wal-Mart to see how many people go for cheap and easy. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 May 11, 2009 The UK are gong one step further, by claiming it will be used to charge for road use the UK Gov is making it manditory for all UK vechicals to carry tracking devices.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 May 11, 2009 QuoteThe UK are gong one step further, by claiming it will be used to charge for road use the UK Gov is making it manditory for all UK vechicals to carry tracking devices. As more fuel efficent cars come up for sale this is being talked about more here. A "usage" tax."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #29 May 11, 2009 Another question I have is: Let's say you're not a suspect for anything but your car is tagged with one of these devices. You find this device and remove it and then throw it away. Would this be an actionable offense or would you have to 'let' them follow you until they decide to take the thing off? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 May 11, 2009 QuoteAnother question I have is: Let's say you're not a suspect for anything but your car is tagged with one of these devices. You find this device and remove it and then throw it away. Would this be an actionable offense or would you have to 'let' them follow you until they decide to take the thing off? Tampering with government property?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #31 May 11, 2009 That was my thought as well -- but the logic in favor of this says that this is no different than cops tracking a car visually. As far as I know it's not illegal to 'lose' a tail (provided you do it by driving legally). Something else I just thought of .... the cop that tries to figure out what the hell happened when another cop tags a rental car Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #32 May 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnother question I have is: Let's say you're not a suspect for anything but your car is tagged with one of these devices. You find this device and remove it and then throw it away. Would this be an actionable offense or would you have to 'let' them follow you until they decide to take the thing off? Tampering with government property? That would be a pretty shitty criminal who was worried about getting in trouble for smashing a tracking device or a bug that was planted on him."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 May 11, 2009 QuoteLet's say you're not a suspect for anything but your car is tagged with one of these devices. You find this device and remove it and then throw it away. Oh no, that's just not enough fun. Duct tape it to the top of a cross-country long-haul truck. It'll be weeks before the cops figure out you've actually been home the whole time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #34 May 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). . As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect. Suspect? I think you mean person, as 'suspect' would only apply if they were limited to tracking people who were actually suspected of committing crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #35 May 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). . As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect. Suspect? I think you mean person, as 'suspect' would only apply if they were limited to tracking people who were actually suspected of committing crimes. But that is what this thread is all about. Didn't you read the OP?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 May 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). . As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect. Suspect? I think you mean person, as 'suspect' would only apply if they were limited to tracking people who were actually suspected of committing crimes. But that is what this thread is all about. Didn't you read the OP? The courst said the police did not need a court order to put a GSP tracking device on a car. Where does that imply suspect?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #37 May 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). . As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect. Suspect? I think you mean person, as 'suspect' would only apply if they were limited to tracking people who were actually suspected of committing crimes. But that is what this thread is all about. Didn't you read the OP? The courst said the police did not need a court order to put a GSP tracking device on a car. Where does that imply suspect? And that's even more wrong.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #38 May 12, 2009 I'm guessing this would be heading toward the US Supremes in a little bit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 May 12, 2009 Quote Tampering with government property? It's not their's once they stick it on your car. But the intelligent approach is to stick this on your nezt door neighbors car - it may be a while before they figure out there is a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 May 12, 2009 QuoteI'm guessing this would be heading toward the US Supremes in a little bit. i would agree"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #41 May 12, 2009 There was a case a while back where a guy was jailed for putting a modified cell phone on a girls car he was stocking. He got caught when he was trying to change the battery. If it wasn't okay for him then why for the police or government. Its my car! What gives them the right to mess with it or attach something to it. Its my property! Oh well....I guess I can finally stock that guy that was eyeing my wife the other night. I just use one of my old phones and modify it as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
