""If you require probable cause for every technique, then you are making it very, very hard for law enforcement," an FBI lawyer told NPR.<p>Of course, that's kind of the point."<p>I have to echo Ars there: that's the damn point. I'd like that lawyer fired and pilloried for making such a gobsmackingly idiotic statement. "Innocent until proven guilty" is far superior to the Napoleonic-law opposite, and I can't muster any sympathy for US law enforcement agencies until at the very least they stop enforcing corporate policy over law and face some accountability for how often they shoot and kill citizens.
I listened to the NPR story when it ran. The FBI explained that they use these devices to <i>establish</i> probable cause, which they'd then use (ideally) to get a warrant for more invasive processes.<p>But as pointed out, if >90% of your cases already can meet that threshold according to a (theoretically) independent judiciary, then you don't really have a problem. Perhaps the other 10% reflected the abuses we want to prevent, or perhaps just sloppy police work.<p>Either way, the warrant requirement is a security control against abusive law enforcement. After all, by their own reasoning, if they've done nothing wrong, then they've nothing to hide (from a judge), right?<p>Interestingly, the story concluded by noting that the FBI would probably just depend more often on cell phone tracking records, which companies will often provide in response to a prosecutorial subpoena even without a judge's signature.
<p><pre><code> >GPS ruling is "hard" on the FBI
</code></pre>
This isn't possibly the most cogent or well thought out response in the world but:<p>Good.<p>What's bad for the big brother wannabees is almost certainly a win for the common man.
What I don't like about this is that they were allowed to turn the devices on again that were illegally placed in the first place. They should have had to turn them off forever because they were illegally placed. I would compare this to collecting evidence without a warrant, getting the warrant and then using that evidence. (which as far as I know is grounds to have the evidence thrown out)
<i>If you require probable cause for every technique, then you are making it very, very hard for law enforcement.</i><p>Thank goodness they have National Security Letters to fall back on.
Is anyone else more annoyed by the 250 number? That means 250 people were essentially being surveyed upon illegally.<p>Granted I'm betting some of those 250 were "bad people" but considering the previous articles about these devices, I'm willing to bet a lot of those 250 people weren't even close to being dangerous and were just a waste of taxpayer money.
Is there any implication here when it comes to using traffic cameras or vehicle-mounted plate scanners to monitor vehicle location? Or will they just switch to doing that more often?<p>In some ways that seems more broadly invasive than GPS, in that it captures information about thousands of individuals who aren't being specifically observed.
They seem to miss the point that they shouldn't be tracking people "the old fashioned way" without a warrant either. You track people because you think they are guilty of a crime and you want to find the details. Not because someone might do something someday.
<i>In other words, they may have turned off 3,000 devices the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, but they turned about 2,750 of them back on soon afterwards.</i><p>Truly Wild Wild West. Nothing will teach them that there need to stay under the law just like anyone else.<p>Mr. Meuller: why don't we go one step further; how about proposal to build safe and secure prisons and just simply lock everyone in??!! Won't that actually stop every possible crime from happening?? I mean: all the thefts, murders, rapes, it all can be avoid and stopped if you kindly please lock us all in!<p>also my other comment: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3635602" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3635602</a>
<i>"If you require probable cause for every technique, then you are making it very, very hard for law enforcement," an FBI lawyer told NPR.</i><p>He should be disbarred. No doubt it's easier for "law enforcement" in China and North Korea