The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could have broad implications for how modern surveillance technology is used to track criminals. The question at stake in The United States v. Antoine Jones is whether Fourth Amendment protections from "unreasonable searches and seizures" extends to GPS tracking and where the boundaries between public and private space lies in an era when many people are increasingly trackable through smart phones and other digital devices.
Jeffrey Rosen, professor at George Washington University Law School, explains more about this unusual case.
Lessons From a Female Union Electrician
President Obama Seeks to Narrow 'War on Terror,' A Closer Look at the IRS Inquiry, Boy Scouts to Allow Gay Members
The DSM and Mental Health in America
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia, The Mayor of Oklahoma City, A New Kind of Commencement Speech
Oklahoma High School Seniors Graduate in Tornado's Aftermath
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [5]
P.S.
This case has since been decided as follows:
"Last week, in one of its sessions most anticipated rulings, the Supreme Court ruled
unanimously
that police erred in not obtaining a warrant before attaching a tracking device to a suspect’s car."
I think this deserves being brought up every time the 4th amendment is discussed, because, invariably, someone declares "they have nothing to hide".
And are never reminded that (as highlighted here), according to the 4th amendment of the constitution, we all have a right to be free from:
"unreasonable searches and seizures"
No matter how often I read or pick apart or parse the language of the 4th amendment, I have never found in its explicit language or numerous interpretations the exception:
"unless you have nothing to hide".
It is protection, if you have something to hide. It is protection if you think you have nothing to hide.
Otherwise, we would have NO recourse against "unreasonable" searches and seizures having declared we have "nothing to hide".
There's a very valid and essential reason that language was left out.
Those who have "nothing to hide" might be mindful of that.
They must obtain a warrant before they do it- no question- putting GPS tracker on your car is invading your private property and it is trespassing- so they should get a warrant- that's just the right thing to do.
This is a great business opportunity for any automotive garage:
Sweep the car and undercarriage for any foreign electronic devices....
Or the Supremes could do the right thing and require a search warrant
I've just heard that Quest installed cameras at work. It means that every movement of employees is recorded.
I've decided to check what the media have to say about this ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
NYT is liberal, so not surprisingly they are not familiar with such words as exploitation and workers rights as human rights.
I decided to check "progressive" media. Well, our "progressive" and "brave" host Amy Goodman has only one topic "FLOTILLA." Not surprisingly, Quest is not discussed. Her guests, assorted group of sickos and prostitutes are not interested (not paid) to deal with the violation of HUMAN RIGHTS OF AMERICANS were they are violated.
I came to NPR. The topic you discuss is important, but I have no doubt that I won't hear the discussion of much larger, much more important issue, affecting most Americans.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.