Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment.

In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order to record where it's going?

And indeed we're probably already there, so this decision is in fact more about the past than about the future.

View on HN

In my own opinion (IANAL), the "tracking is a "search"" view does not imply that there needs to be a physical device. So tracking a vehicle (using technology) in any other way is also a "search".

I'd agree. Tracking through any physical method (IE through an OnStar device or built in cellular with GPS) would have to go through the vehicle manufacturer or service provider, which (if the companies behave how they should) should require a warrant simply to receive the data in the first place.

The greatest concern would be when surveillance satellites could be used to track cars inside a city. Or using CCTV traffic cameras for a live-tracking of tagged license plates. The question is would this tracking actually constitute a search. Because a warrant doesn't have to be issued for an undercover cop to follow a car, only probable cause. So does 'probable cause' extend to digital tracking through a CCTV grid, satellite or combination? That's where it gets creepy to me, because IMO this likely won't constitute a search.

Such as accessing the phone carrier's records on where a cell phone has been via its internal GPS?

Or perhaps following the car with a drone.

Until we have drones smart enough to focus on a specific car (vs. a mostly identical model right next to it), the drones will still require human operators, which makes the process not far removed from an old-fashioned tail (similar to the mentioned beeper case).

Targets can be laser painted/marked by a drone or more usually a secondary source and followed by a drone on the specific signature. This is currently actively being done in several combat theatres.

It is highly likely to be already happening in the US, particularly along the borders and in federal investigations.

You're over thinking it. Red light cameras can already read the license plate of every car that goes through an intersection. The roving fleet of meter maids in DC drive cars that read the plates of every car they pass.

The Supreme Court decision actually mentions that the government may "ask" car makers to just give them access to the car's own GPS device. Scary that the Supreme Court even suspects this will happen.

I don't get why the police didn't do this to begin with and then they could have simply blamed the auto manufacturer for not requesting a warrant.

I think all you need is a netwrok of surveillance cameras, which is already in place, to varying extents depending on where you live.

Then it's a software challenge to automatically read the licence plates in view and keep track of them in a database.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com