We have moved to theshamrockconnection.com
Everyday Hero or Privacy InvaderMonday, December 05, 2011 By Courtney Inbody
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:JA;} “See activity in real time: Engine on, off, driving, go, stop, idling, speeding, towing, and more.” By having a GPS system within any car, gpspolice.com can track any vehicle at any time. Whether the car has been stolen, or if the owner just wants to know who in their family is using it at the time, using this GPS tracker can help save time and money. CTV News reported, “thanks to GPS Police technology, the owner of a welding company recovers their $100,000 welding truck within hours of being stolen – and leads RCMP to a chop shop where numerous other stolen vehicles are recovered and a crime ring is broken up.” Yet are tracking cars through their GPS systems even legal? While the United States Supreme Court tries to come up to speed with the technological advances that are present within the country, they are also faced with new dilemmas: mainly, the constitutionality of tracking one’s whereabouts through a device. “It feels like an invasion of privacy when I think about police tracking me through a GPS,” junior Tia Streeter said. “It gives them no right to track me without my knowledge.” Using global positioning systems within cars and on cellular devices can help track down murderers, kidnappers and car thieves, but is it going against a person’s natural right of privacy, protected under the Fourth Amendment? The Supreme Court says no. Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches of one’s home, car, or locked desk of some sort is ultimately banned and deemed unconstitutional. GPS tracking, on the other hand, is “just an electronic extension of old-fashioned human surveillance,” Nina Totenberg of the National Public Radio, said. Being tracked by a device that is wired into one’s car or cell phone has both positive and negative aspects. Both sides of the issue should be considered when the Supreme Court makes their judgment call on whether to allow tracking or not. For example, if a kidnapper comes to a home, takes a child and drives off in a stolen vehicle, the police can use the GPS within that car to track its position. One of the arguments for using GPS systems as tracking devices to be constitutional is that more children can be saved, and the number of kidnaps and child murders will be greatly reduced. “For a serial killer, yeah, of course it would be a good idea to use a GPS as a tracking device,” junior Michaela Walker said. “But, if you have a parking ticket, that’s a little over exaggerated. It is an invasion of privacy if they take this too far.” On the other hand, it would not be constitutional if a policeman bought a GPS device and stuck it onto someone’s car, or located that person through the tracking system on his or her phone at the police station, just because they wanted to know that person’s location on a daily basis. Destany Yoguez, a senior at Kennedy, said that she would “feel violated and stalked” if the police were tracking her. “It is good in some ways, but police should not use this for their own personal gain. They can’t abuse their power.” In 2004, suspected drug lord Antoine Jones was being investigated by a joint FBI and Washington Police task force. Knowing that he could be caught by his phone conversations, he was careful about what he said. Finally, the police put a global positioning system on his car, and the car’s whereabouts were tracked for 28 consecutive days. Luckily, by using the GPS device, Jones was arrested, and 97 kilos of cocaine, as well as $850,000 was salvaged. Unfortunately, the case against Antoine Jones was thrown out of the Washington Courthouse because the tracking of Jones’ location by the GPS device was obtained by illegal means: it was not used with a warrant. Currently, the Supreme Court is still in debate whether using a GPS tracking system without a warrant by a court judge violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban for unreasonable searches. The police must need probable cause, and, according to the Fourth Amendment, a warrant. Also, under the Fourth Amendment, Americans have the right to their own privacy, so by the police tracking them through their GPS systems without their knowledge, that constitutionality comes in to play as well. “If a policeman is jealous of his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, do they have the right to track her? I don’t think so,” Tia Streeter said. As technology changes, so do the rules. The choice to abide by the rules set in place by our forefathers lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will GPS tracking be legal? |