Entry tags:
100 Posts in 100 Days: Day 23
An important Supreme Court decision has been reported today:
High court: warrant needed for GPS tracking
I am relieved by this decision. A lot of laws have been passed since the 9/11 attacks, and most of them have been questionable from a civil liberties standpoint.
I tend to be distrustful of technology without limits in police hands. A case in point would be the use of Tasers. They were supposed to be used to help the police deal with combative arrestees in a safer manner, thus protecting both the police and the arrestee. These devices were generally adopted without much by way of guidelines and limits.
Because of this lack of limits, too many officers have come to rely on them even in situations where they are not necessary, opening the door to abuse.
Thus we get stories about 80 year old women or children getting Tasered, or people who are simply being annoying (as opposed to being threatening), and what could have been a great tool has become a problem. I suspect if the police had to fill out as much paperwork as they do for the discharge of their gun, and have the use of the Taser reviewed, abuses would be likely to drop.
It was the same with the GPS tracking. While it's a perfectly appropriate tool, I think the use of it MUST be authorized by a court, otherwise abuse is inevitable.
For people who say "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," I beg to differ.
A simple example would be that you go to an apartment building every evening because your mom lives there and has recently had surgery.
How would you feel if you were called to account for your movements by the police because your mother's apartment was next door to someone they were investigating? Do you really believe you would think it was okay to have to go to the police station for questioning? Wouldn't you feel like your privacy had been invaded? Would it bother you if they asked about the other places you had gone?
Something tells me you wouldn't be too happy about it.
High court: warrant needed for GPS tracking
I am relieved by this decision. A lot of laws have been passed since the 9/11 attacks, and most of them have been questionable from a civil liberties standpoint.
I tend to be distrustful of technology without limits in police hands. A case in point would be the use of Tasers. They were supposed to be used to help the police deal with combative arrestees in a safer manner, thus protecting both the police and the arrestee. These devices were generally adopted without much by way of guidelines and limits.
Because of this lack of limits, too many officers have come to rely on them even in situations where they are not necessary, opening the door to abuse.
Thus we get stories about 80 year old women or children getting Tasered, or people who are simply being annoying (as opposed to being threatening), and what could have been a great tool has become a problem. I suspect if the police had to fill out as much paperwork as they do for the discharge of their gun, and have the use of the Taser reviewed, abuses would be likely to drop.
It was the same with the GPS tracking. While it's a perfectly appropriate tool, I think the use of it MUST be authorized by a court, otherwise abuse is inevitable.
For people who say "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," I beg to differ.
A simple example would be that you go to an apartment building every evening because your mom lives there and has recently had surgery.
How would you feel if you were called to account for your movements by the police because your mother's apartment was next door to someone they were investigating? Do you really believe you would think it was okay to have to go to the police station for questioning? Wouldn't you feel like your privacy had been invaded? Would it bother you if they asked about the other places you had gone?
Something tells me you wouldn't be too happy about it.