Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/ 

Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in bPublic Placesb

By David Kravets   September 21, 2010  |  3:29 pm  |  Categories:
Surveillance, privacy

The Obama administration has urged a federal appeals court to allow the
government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspectsb
vehicles to track their every move.

The Justice Department is demanding a federal appeals court rehear a case in
which it reversed the conviction and life sentence of a cocaine dealer whose
vehicle was tracked via GPS for a month, without a court warrant. The
authorities then obtained warrants to search and find drugs in the locations
where defendant Antoine Jones had travelled.

The administration, in urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia to reverse a three-judge panelbs August ruling from the same
court, said Monday that Americans should expect no privacy while in public.

bThe panelbs conclusion that Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in
the public movements of his Jeep rested on the premise that an individual has
a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of his or her movements
in public places, b Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Smith wrote the court in a
petition for rehearing.

The case is an important test of privacy rights as GPS devices have become a
common tool in crime fighting, and can be affixed to moving vehicles by an
officer shooting a dart. Three other circuit courts have already said the
authorities do not need a warrant for GPS vehicle tracking, Smith pointed
out.

The circuitbs ruling means that, in the District of Columbia area, the
authorities need a warrant to install a GPS-tracking device on a vehicle. But
in much of the United States, including the West, a warrant is not required.
Unless the circuit changes it mind, only the Supreme Court can mandate a
uniform rule.

The government said the appellate panelbs August decision is bvague and
unworkableb and undermines a law enforcement practice used bwith great
frequency.b

The legal dispute centers on a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning a
tracking beacon affixed to a container, without a court warrant, to follow a
motorist to a secluded cabin. The appeals court said that decision did not
apply to todaybs GPS monitoring of a suspect, which lasted a month.

The beacon tracked a person, bfrom one place to another,b whereas the GPS
device monitored Jonesb bmovements 24 hours a day for 28 days.b

The government argued Monday that the appellate courtbs decision boffers no
guidance as to when monitoring becomes so efficient or bprolongedb as to
constitute a search triggering the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.b

The appeals court ruled the case billustrates how the sequence of a personbs
movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is
composed.b

The court said that a person bwho knows all of anotherbs travels can deduce
whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an
unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate
of particular individuals or political groups b and not just one such fact
about a person, but all such facts.b



Read More
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10FULN6cT --