9th Circuit court rules the government can use GPS to track you

This is currently the rule in a majority of US jurisdictions.<p>The 9th Circuit did not make a ruling. Rather, they declined to hear the case because California law is already on point and they do not wish to change the law.<p>I am displeased with the attorney writing the article for another reason. He wrote, "The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy." The Supreme Court articulated 4 factors to determine zone of privacy, and proximity to the home is only one of the four. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987),<p>Curtliage does not mean area close to your house. It means the area that a person can readily see (sort of). If I can see your front door from the street, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. If I can see your backyard when I fly over in a small airplane at a normal heigh, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).<p>I am not saying that I agree with this. All I am saying is that this is the current law and it is not new.

If you want to get the ruling overturned, wait for your congress critter to park their vehicle on a public street and do the same thing, then setup a blog that shows the information online.

The court is wrong on the privacy issue. Setting that issue aside, isn't what the police did in this case an illegal act of vandalism? If you attach a bumper sticker to a police car without the knowledge and consent of the police department that owns it, that is vandalism and you can be prosecuted for it. How is this unauthorized alteration of private property any different?

Is it really that hard for them to get warrants? I don't get all these shenanigans to avoid warrants. They should be able to easily make the case that this person was suspected of selling drugs and that the GPS data would help prove this.<p>I don't understand the law involved in getting and using a warrant, can someone clarify the difficulties that make it necessary to bypass it?

I have a lot more respect for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. His comments on fences and poor people are a nice rational argument to prove why this ruling is so unfair.

George Orwell 1984<p>exhibit A: the two way view-screens, you never know when your being watched.<p>exhibit B: global tracking system, from when you come out of your mother to your grave.<p>We can only hope that going forward, men will resolve to behave like angels so that they will not abuse the power we are giving them with technology.