No, some phones can have the GPS hacked. I have two that I've disabled GPS functions.
Of course, the easy answer if the law allows GPS tracking...is just make sure your carrier doesn't know who you are.
Who's worried about 2012, it's only 1984:uhoh:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Court of Appeals allows WARRANTLESS GPS Tracking on Virginians
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
No, some phones can have the GPS hacked. I have two that I've disabled GPS functions.
Of course, the easy answer if the law allows GPS tracking...is just make sure your carrier doesn't know who you are.
Who's worried about 2012, it's only 1984:uhoh:
user
Accomplished Advocate
By the way, the "E" in the "E911" "improvements" to cell phone regulations doesn't just provide for the ability to track movements by means of the GPS function built into the phone. The really scary part is that the microphone and the camera (if equipped) can be turned on remotely even when the device is "off". Oh, and by the way, the GPS can't be turned off, either. The option in the setup function for turning off the GPS is only to turn it off for your own purposes. And there are cases holding that the Eavesdropping, Wiretapping, and Electronic Surveillance Act doesn't apply to LEO surveillance, either - the Telecommunications Act of 1933 authorizes any person to receive radio transmissions from any source. And microwaves are "radio transmissions". You can either put the cell phone in a metal (microwave proof, such as steel - aluminum may work depending on the thickness) box, or take out the battery. Otherwise, you're "on", and "they're" listening.
wylde007
Regular Member
:uhoh: Indeed.
I say if they contend I have no expectation of privacy about my personal vehicle in front of my own home or business then they should have no expectation of not being shot for trespassing.
First shot is a warning. Second shot's in case the first one misses.
AbNo
Regular Member
Hee, hee. Well, if there is no warrant, there is really no record that the police put it there, right? So, if it suddenly falls off, or gets re-attached to a semi full of watermelons headed for Quebec, nobody can prove I did it. Right?
"Oh! Was that your GPS tracker I stomped into the pavement, Officer? I'm sorry."
No! Wait! What if I find a GPS tracker on my car, then promptly drive to the nearest 7-Eleven or donut shop and attach it to a police cruiser? "Hey! That guy is following our patrol cops around to all their calls!"
Heh, as fun as that might be, I'm sure I could scavenge some great electronic parts out of one of those things for one of my projects.
SAvage410
Regular Member
Meh ...
When not "in use", my cell phone is usually tucked away in my pants pocket. They can listen to me farting (and take the requisites pictures) all they want. Not the GPS thing could be an issue: "Hey - he spent the last 2 hours in the can, man!"
Repeater
Regular Member
GPS Detector = Radar Detector?
I'm wondering if the day will come when:
1) An Entrepreneur invents such a device and offers it for sale, including Virginia, followed by ...
2) The General Assembly chooses to BAN the device, due to LEO opposition.
Stay safe? HOW?
I'm wondering if the day will come when:
1) An Entrepreneur invents such a device and offers it for sale, including Virginia, followed by ...
2) The General Assembly chooses to BAN the device, due to LEO opposition.
Stay safe? HOW?
AbNo
Regular Member
Let me weigh in with my AS in Electronics.
[tinfoilhat]
It would depend on if the thing actually transmitted, or if it was just a logger.
If it transmitted, it would be much easier to find with, say a basic spectrum analyzer, which runs at LEAST about $1,000. ( I just looked)
Of course, once a common frequency for these things is found, making a detector for one would be about $20-$50 worth of parts, and a couple of hours of labor.
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/rf/bugdetector.htm
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/BugDetector%28mini%29/BugDetector%28mini%29-P1.html
Hell, if you wanted to make an adjustable version of these, you could slowly scan a frequency spectrum at various points on your car.
It might be easier, however, to build something that looks for a DC signal, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head at 3AM that exists.
'course, you'd get a few false positives from the car's brain box and the radio, but you could disconnect the battery (and lose your car's computer and your radio's settings) to take care of that.
Now, as far as the cellphone snooping, well, my cell phone is a slider, so the camera can't see anything unless it's deliberately in use.
You could build a tiny faraday cage for it, but if it worked, the phone would go into full-transmitting-search mode, and drain the battery. It's simpler and easier to pull the battery.
[/tinfoilhat]
[tinfoilhat]
It would depend on if the thing actually transmitted, or if it was just a logger.
If it transmitted, it would be much easier to find with, say a basic spectrum analyzer, which runs at LEAST about $1,000. ( I just looked)
Of course, once a common frequency for these things is found, making a detector for one would be about $20-$50 worth of parts, and a couple of hours of labor.
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/rf/bugdetector.htm
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/BugDetector%28mini%29/BugDetector%28mini%29-P1.html
Hell, if you wanted to make an adjustable version of these, you could slowly scan a frequency spectrum at various points on your car.
It might be easier, however, to build something that looks for a DC signal, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head at 3AM that exists.
'course, you'd get a few false positives from the car's brain box and the radio, but you could disconnect the battery (and lose your car's computer and your radio's settings) to take care of that.
Now, as far as the cellphone snooping, well, my cell phone is a slider, so the camera can't see anything unless it's deliberately in use.
You could build a tiny faraday cage for it, but if it worked, the phone would go into full-transmitting-search mode, and drain the battery. It's simpler and easier to pull the battery.
[/tinfoilhat]
Last edited:
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
You guys and your fancy GPS-tracking phones. Doesn't anyone else have a Trac-Phone?
On the models that are hackable, you have to cut jumpers and add a resistor.
This is not a software option.
It does violate FCC operating regulations though.
Nope!
But I do have Verizon and T mobile prepaid.
I gave them all my correct information of course.:uhoh:
Let me weigh in with my AS in Electronics.
[tinfoilhat]
You could build a tiny faraday cage for it, but if it worked, the phone would go into full-transmitting-search mode, and drain the battery. It's simpler and easier to pull the battery.
[/tinfoilhat]
The spacing would have to be 1/4 wave
It would be simpler to just make a solid copper box.Citizen
Founder's Club Member
The spacing would have to be 1/4 wave
Hmmmm. Maybe a leather case "padded" with 0000 steel wool between layers of thin leather? Turn the phone off so it doesn't go into full-time search mode, but keep it "faradayed" so the tracking cannot be remotely activated?
Does a faraday cage not need to be grounded? Or, is that just for big EMP's?
Last edited:
AbNo
Regular Member
It needs to be grounded.
That being said, it's cheaper and easier to just pull the damn battery. :lol:
That being said, it's cheaper and easier to just pull the damn battery. :lol:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Well, of course. But, not as much fun as dreaming up complex counters that take advantage of specialized knowledge. C'mon, this is an internet forum!
Well, of course. But, not as much fun as dreaming up complex counters that take advantage of specialized knowledge. C'mon, this is an internet forum!
Yep, why take the fun out of it!:lol:
Then again, just think of the bazillion ways we can come up with to disconnect the battery.
Or
How many names can I come up with for prepaid phones accounts.
Repeater
Regular Member
Supreme Court, Congress need new rules for GPS searches
Good editorial:
THE FOURTH Amendment protects Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures.’’ But that protection, the Supreme Court has held consistently for more than 40 years, applies only where there is “a legitimate expectation of privacy.’’ This means, for example, that the police do not need a warrant to follow a suspect as he drives through town, since a person’s public movements are visible to anyone who chooses to look.
But that test is fast becoming outmoded in an age when advancing technology makes possible a degree of relentless 24/7 surveillance that would have been the stuff of science fiction four decades ago. The Supreme Court should take the first opportunity to reassess its test in light of improved electronic surveillance devices, and Congress should step in to provide guidelines of its own.
The latest case involves Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident suspected by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency of marijuana trafficking. Sneaking onto his property without a warrant late one night, DEA agents attached a GPS tracking device to his Jeep, which was parked in the driveway. Weeks later — alerted by the GPS monitor — the agents pulled Pineda-Moreno over as he was driving out of a suspected marijuana growing site. Sure enough, his Jeep contained a hefty stash of marijuana.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the agents had done nothing wrong in planting the GPS tracker, since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open driveway. After all, the judges reasoned, no one would object “if a neighborhood child had walked up Pineda-Moreno’s driveway and crawled under his Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat.’’
When the full circuit refused to reconsider the case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a fiery dissent: “There’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees. . .’’ Is it only the well-to-do whose cars — secure in underground garages or behind tall walls or electric gates — are protected by the Fourth Amendment?
Other courts have come to a different conclusion. Last month the DC Circuit ruled that long-term GPS monitoring is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The issue should ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. But Congress need not wait. It can act now to impose reasonable guidelines on the use of high-tech surveillance without a warrant or probable cause. Several states have already done so, either statutorily or judicially. Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the use of a GPS tracking device is a “seizure’’ and therefore requires a warrant. Federal law-enforcement agents should be held to the same requirement.
For, as Kozinski notes, the stakes could not be higher.
“I don’t think that most people in the United States would agree,’’ writes the judge, who immigrated from Communist-era Romania in the 1960s, “that someone who leaves his car parked in his driveway . . . invites people to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle’s every movement and transmit that information to total strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu.’’
Good editorial:
THE FOURTH Amendment protects Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures.’’ But that protection, the Supreme Court has held consistently for more than 40 years, applies only where there is “a legitimate expectation of privacy.’’ This means, for example, that the police do not need a warrant to follow a suspect as he drives through town, since a person’s public movements are visible to anyone who chooses to look.
But that test is fast becoming outmoded in an age when advancing technology makes possible a degree of relentless 24/7 surveillance that would have been the stuff of science fiction four decades ago. The Supreme Court should take the first opportunity to reassess its test in light of improved electronic surveillance devices, and Congress should step in to provide guidelines of its own.
The latest case involves Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident suspected by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency of marijuana trafficking. Sneaking onto his property without a warrant late one night, DEA agents attached a GPS tracking device to his Jeep, which was parked in the driveway. Weeks later — alerted by the GPS monitor — the agents pulled Pineda-Moreno over as he was driving out of a suspected marijuana growing site. Sure enough, his Jeep contained a hefty stash of marijuana.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the agents had done nothing wrong in planting the GPS tracker, since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open driveway. After all, the judges reasoned, no one would object “if a neighborhood child had walked up Pineda-Moreno’s driveway and crawled under his Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat.’’
When the full circuit refused to reconsider the case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a fiery dissent: “There’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees. . .’’ Is it only the well-to-do whose cars — secure in underground garages or behind tall walls or electric gates — are protected by the Fourth Amendment?
Other courts have come to a different conclusion. Last month the DC Circuit ruled that long-term GPS monitoring is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The issue should ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. But Congress need not wait. It can act now to impose reasonable guidelines on the use of high-tech surveillance without a warrant or probable cause. Several states have already done so, either statutorily or judicially. Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the use of a GPS tracking device is a “seizure’’ and therefore requires a warrant. Federal law-enforcement agents should be held to the same requirement.
For, as Kozinski notes, the stakes could not be higher.
“I don’t think that most people in the United States would agree,’’ writes the judge, who immigrated from Communist-era Romania in the 1960s, “that someone who leaves his car parked in his driveway . . . invites people to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle’s every movement and transmit that information to total strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu.’’
Repeater
Regular Member
Obama wants WARRANTLESS GPS Tracking
Well, it seems the Obama Administration wants warrantless GPS tracking for Americans nationwide.
A great tool for the Feds to track dissidents (domestic terrorists?) ...
Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’
Well, it seems the Obama Administration wants warrantless GPS tracking for Americans nationwide.
A great tool for the Feds to track dissidents (domestic terrorists?) ...
Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’
TFred
Regular Member
And of course the part that steams me the most is that the mainstream media is sounding like crickets on this story... (the Obama administration urging warrantless tracking.) We all know if the Bush administration had issued this brief, there would be blood-curdling screams about the end of the Fourth Amendment.
How much more hypocritical can they get? I am afraid to imagine.
TFred
How much more hypocritical can they get? I am afraid to imagine.
TFred
Last edited:
AbNo
Regular Member
So... What would happen if a citizen's group started putting GPS trackers on state-use cars?
I mean, there's already no expectation of privacy for government workers, AND it looks like, since the gov't car can usually be found on publicly accessible areas, that any expectation for that privacy is waved, as well.
I mean, there's already no expectation of privacy for government workers, AND it looks like, since the gov't car can usually be found on publicly accessible areas, that any expectation for that privacy is waved, as well.