As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Privacy, or lack thereof

mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
edited August 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Rich people can expect privacy, poor people cannot. So says the 9th Circuit Court in a recent ruling. The case involved the DEA agents going onto a citizen's property (sans warrant) and placing a GPS unit under their car to track their movements.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.

From the dissent:
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski continued
"There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."

Google can capture your MAC addresses while wardriving and the DEA can bug your car on private property with impunity. Got it.

Is it time to elect our judges from the ranks of the uninitiated? From the poor, huddled masses? As law becomes more and more complex, there's some merit to the possibility. Laws are being written by "experts" and not legislators, and while conservatives may decry judges finding rights where there previously were none (ie, abortion), other judges are removing protections that are clearly there (4th Amendment, anyone?).

mrdobalina on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Is this being appealed?

    adytum on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This is pretty terrible.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If their driveway is public property, then they shouldn't have to pay to maintain its upkeep.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Any reason experts from poor childhoods or family backgrounds can't be appointed to the bench? I suspect Kozinski is being quoted selectively here.

    Appointing idiots to the bench seems like exactly the wrong way to go about making the legal system more intuitive and simple to understand

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    If their driveway is public property, then they shouldn't have to pay to maintain its upkeep.

    Without reading any articles, "not private" didn't mean the same thing as "public".

    On top of that, the car is still their property. While tailing a car may be legal, fiddling around with it should not be.

    Are cops allowed to tag a person's coat or shoes with a bug?

    Also, is Judge Kozinski saying unlocked houses don't need a warrant to be searched?

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This really is a rather worrying ruling isn't it.

    Also, Baucus is an idiot.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The 9th Circuit Court doesn't care about poor people!

    adytum on
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Hate this ruling. Come on 9th, what's wrong with you?

    Private property is private property. It doesn't matter if there is a fence and a gate and guard dogs or not, and the reasoning quoted above doesn't make sense. I could hop a fence and be on private property uninvited just like I could walk across some guys lawn, it just takes more effort.

    If the car was parked on the street or in a McDonalds parking lot or something, then the DEA would have been fine.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    The 9th Circuit Court doesn't care about poor people!

    Yes they do.

    They care so much that they want to watch them.

    All the time.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    The 9th Circuit Court doesn't care about poor people!

    Yes they do.

    They care so much that they want to watch them.

    All the time.

    They certainly do seem to care if they're smoking pot.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Hate this ruling. Come on 9th, what's wrong with you?

    Private property is private property. It doesn't matter if there is a fence and a gate and guard dogs or not, and the reasoning quoted above doesn't make sense. I could hop a fence and be on private property uninvited just like I could walk across some guys lawn, it just takes more effort.

    If the car was parked on the street or in a McDonalds parking lot or something, then the DEA would have been fine.

    Most "rich people" fences are primarily used as status symbols and property demarcation, not for actual privacy or security.

    adytum on
  • Options
    taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Any reason experts from poor childhoods or family backgrounds can't be appointed to the bench? I suspect Kozinski is being quoted selectively here.

    Appointing idiots to the bench seems like exactly the wrong way to go about making the legal system more intuitive and simple to understand

    Seems like a structural critique to me. People from rich backgrounds are more likely to have the money for elite colleges and law schools and are more likely to have family connections in politics, so they're more likely to get appointments.

    I don't think I know what you mean in that last sentence.

    taoist drunk on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This is a very odd ruling in that it establishes an idea that you can buy your way out of police actions.

    Either the cops going warrantless into your driveway and tagging your car is legit or not. The fact that you have a fence or not shouldn't determine if the cops were in the right.


    edit: That said, I don't think this is fixed by having a push for putting random selections of the population on the bench. I think the bench should be populated by rational people who think problems through with the legal framework we've established in mind. Not, you know, the idea of random jury duty being turned into random Judge duty.

    kildy on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Any reason experts from poor childhoods or family backgrounds can't be appointed to the bench? I suspect Kozinski is being quoted selectively here.

    Appointing idiots to the bench seems like exactly the wrong way to go about making the legal system more intuitive and simple to understand

    Seems like a structural critique to me. People from rich backgrounds are more likely to have the money for elite colleges and law schools and are more likely to have family connections in politics, so they're more likely to get appointments.

    I don't think I know what you mean in that last sentence.

    This bit:
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Is it time to elect our judges from the ranks of the uninitiated? From the poor, huddled masses? As law becomes more and more complex, there's some merit to the possibility. Laws are being written by "experts" and not legislators, and while conservatives may decry judges finding rights where there previously were none (ie, abortion), other judges are removing protections that are clearly there (4th Amendment, anyone?).

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I am oddly fine with this as long assuming the police had a warrant to plant the device in the first place.

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Google can capture your MAC addresses while wardriving and the DEA can bug your car on private property with impunity. Got it.

    These two concepts are not even related to each other. Your router is broadcasting your MAC address (which not even unique, FFS) up 2 blocks in every direction. It's part and parcel of how wireless internet works.

    Google would achieve equivalency if they were walking up to your router which is for some reason plugged in and working on your driveway, and installing tracking software onto it.

    DEA would be equivalent to what Google did if they just drove by your house and wrote down your car's license plate number.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes.

    That shit quasi works with the paparazzi and stupid teenagers, it does not work with federal agents.

    nstf on
  • Options
    Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited August 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    I am oddly fine with this as long assuming the police had a warrant to plant the device in the first place.

    They didn't, and that's actually a lot more disturbing. The court found that the government does not need a warrant to plant and use a GPS locator. At least, that's what the linked article says. Extremely troubling if true.

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    In that case I'm disquieted that GPS locators can be installed without a warrant. That seems like the sort of thing you should need a warrant for.

    Deebaser on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Electing judges is a terrible, terrible idea for reasons (campaigns) that should be obvious.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    In that case I'm disquieted that GPS locators can be installed without a warrant. That seems like the sort of thing you should need a warrant for.

    According to the DC Circuit, they do.

    So, it looks like we have a split decision. The question now is if SCOTUS will grant cert.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    In that case I'm disquieted that GPS locators can be installed without a warrant. That seems like the sort of thing you should need a warrant for.

    According to the DC Circuit, they do.

    So, it looks like we have a split decision. The question now is if SCOTUS will grant cert.

    I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that ruling.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    In that case I'm disquieted that GPS locators can be installed without a warrant. That seems like the sort of thing you should need a warrant for.

    According to the DC Circuit, they do.

    So, it looks like we have a split decision. The question now is if SCOTUS will grant cert.

    I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that ruling.

    Because we'd have Scalia arguing that GPS chips should just be implanted in poor people at birth?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    "Halt, citizen!"

    "Is there a problem, officeOW what the hell was that you just stuck me with?"

    "You have just been injected with a GPS tracker, citizen."

    "But I haven't done anything to deserve this sort of treatment!"

    "Perhaps not yet, citizen. But when you have, or we feel like you have, or we feel like blaming you for something someone else did, we'll know where to find you."

    This has been a presentation of Thanatos Theatre.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    "Halt, citizen!"

    "Is there a problem, officeOW what the hell was that you just stuck me with?"

    "You have just been injected with a GPS tracker, citizen."

    "But I haven't done anything to deserve this sort of treatment!"

    "Perhaps not yet, citizen. But when you have, or we feel like you have, or we feel like blaming you for something someone else did, we'll know where to find you."

    This has been a presentation of Thanatos Theatre.

    That isn't Thanatos Theatre. This is:

    Officer: *BLAM!*
    Bystander1: "Oh my god, that police officer just shot that guy in the mouth for no reason."
    Bystander2: *video taping* "Hey, what the hell. At least I can put this on the Youtubes."
    Bystander3: "That is fucked up!"
    Officer: *BLAM!* *BLAM!* *BLAM!*
    Officer: "Fuck. I used the wrong gun. How what am I going to do with all these extra GPS Tracking Installer Bullets?"

    But seriously, this whole thing is fucked up. What if the government could invent highly magnetized GPS trackers that they could lob over a fence and stick to a car? Does the mere existence of a fence prevent that? Does the fence act as an allegory to some kind of gigantic domed forcefield around the home? Would rich people then be in the same shit as the rest of us?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    "Halt, citizen!"

    "Is there a problem, officeOW what the hell was that you just stuck me with?"

    "You have just been injected with a GPS tracker, citizen."

    "But I haven't done anything to deserve this sort of treatment!"

    "Perhaps not yet, citizen. But when you have, or we feel like you have, or we feel like blaming you for something someone else did, we'll know where to find you."

    This has been a presentation of Thanatos Theatre.

    minority-report-ui.jpg

    << I bet this is Thanatos' version of a horror film

    Rent on
  • Options
    NuckerNucker Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Any reason experts from poor childhoods or family backgrounds can't be appointed to the bench? I suspect Kozinski is being quoted selectively here.

    Appointing idiots to the bench seems like exactly the wrong way to go about making the legal system more intuitive and simple to understand

    Seems like a structural critique to me. People from rich backgrounds are more likely to have the money for elite colleges and law schools and are more likely to have family connections in politics, so they're more likely to get appointments.

    I don't think I know what you mean in that last sentence.

    This bit:
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Is it time to elect our judges from the ranks of the uninitiated? From the poor, huddled masses? As law becomes more and more complex, there's some merit to the possibility. Laws are being written by "experts" and not legislators, and while conservatives may decry judges finding rights where there previously were none (ie, abortion), other judges are removing protections that are clearly there (4th Amendment, anyone?).

    Really, this was the first thing that came to mind reading that question. Bad, bad, bad, bad. As law becomes more and more complex, there's less merit to the possibility--when it comes to law, the person who is most educated and most qualified to make those determinations should be the one doing it, not the person who wins beauty contests and says the right buzz-words.

    Nucker on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Actually, the more I think about it, the more the original article doesn't quite pass the smell test. Because why would you argue about the DEA sneaking on your property and turning on the bug when the bigger issue is the bug being installed without authorization from the courts (which is what the individual in DC argued and won on.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Actually, the more I think about it, the more the original article doesn't quite pass the smell test. Because why would you argue about the DEA sneaking on your property and turning on the bug when the bigger issue is the bug being installed without authorization from the courts (which is what the individual in DC argued and won on.)

    Maybe he has a bad lawyer.

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Actually, the more I think about it, the more the original article doesn't quite pass the smell test. Because why would you argue about the DEA sneaking on your property and turning on the bug when the bigger issue is the bug being installed without authorization from the courts (which is what the individual in DC argued and won on.)

    Maybe he has a bad lawyer.

    That is a possibility.

    Edit: Of course, that possibility falls on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    But seriously, this whole thing is fucked up. What if the government could invent highly magnetized GPS trackers that they could lob over a fence and stick to a car? Does the mere existence of a fence prevent that? Does the fence act as an allegory to some kind of gigantic domed forcefield around the home? Would rich people then be in the same shit as the rest of us?

    What if it's mandated every car after 2XXX year in production must have built in GPS. I read one article a year back talking about some states considering a tax based on the miles you drive, and the way they would calculate that is through GPS.

    I have a Nav unit built into my car. So wouldn't the next step, not necessarily be magnetized GPS trackers, but just tapping into or hacking into your cars Nav unit/GPS? (Provided they had a warrant?)

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    As long as aa warrent is obtained I have no beefs with this. The government gets to do all sorts of skeezy shit with a warrent.

    The no warrent thing is fucking bullshit though.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    It may have been one of those buildings that can only be entered via the driveway. That would explain the reference to the mailman, as a government employee would have to walk up the driveway each day to deliver mail to such a layout.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    It may have been one of those buildings that can only be entered via the driveway. That would explain the reference to the mailman, as a government employee would have to walk up the driveway each day to deliver mail to such a layout.

    I was assume that as the owner of a property like this, I give my permission of entry for reasonable reasons. Delivery of mail, packages, telling me my dog got out of the yard, etc.

    There wouldn't be an implied agreement on my part to allow law enforcement to engage in warrant-less activities.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    It may have been one of those buildings that can only be entered via the driveway. That would explain the reference to the mailman, as a government employee would have to walk up the driveway each day to deliver mail to such a layout.

    I was assume that as the owner of a property like this, I give my permission of entry for reasonable reasons. Delivery of mail, packages, telling me my dog got out of the yard, etc.

    There wouldn't be an implied agreement on my part to allow law enforcement to engage in warrant-less activities.

    Except there is that nagging question of if it was warrantless. Again, why wasn't the arguments raised in DC raised here?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Actually, the more I think about it, the more the original article doesn't quite pass the smell test. Because why would you argue about the DEA sneaking on your property and turning on the bug when the bigger issue is the bug being installed without authorization from the courts (which is what the individual in DC argued and won on.)

    Maybe he has a bad lawyer.

    That is a possibility.

    Edit: Of course, that possibility falls on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.

    There's the small chance that the court would have ruled that warrantless bugging was allowed, in which case whether the property was entered without a warrant would become relevent. Best to cover all of the bases.

    jothki on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I think the leap to class warfare was rather odd and misplaced. The idea that their driveway isn't private property just because they allow deliveries to be made and children to play there is all kinds of ridiculous. Trying to make this all about rich vs. poor only severely limits the otherwise myriad reasons why the decision should be challenged. The difference between a delivery man and a government agent is of absolute significance here, but the judge seems to lump them all one in the same. And rich people get deliveries and have neighborhood kids playing in their yard, too, you know? Both the decision and the dissent are bizzarre, and I'd much rather see this decision get overturned without turning it into a strange tangent on wealth.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I think the leap to class warfare was rather odd and misplaced. The idea that their driveway isn't private property just because they allow deliveries to be made and children to play there is all kinds of ridiculous. Trying to make this all about rich vs. poor only severely limits the otherwise myriad reasons why the decision should be challenged. The difference between a delivery man and a government agent is of absolute significance here, but the judge seems to lump them all one in the same. And rich people get deliveries and have neighborhood kids playing in their yard, too, you know? Both the decision and the dissent are bizzarre, and I'd much rather see this decision get overturned without turning it into a strange tangent on wealth.

    Mentioning class here serves to point out how often the law favors the rich in subtle ways. The rich can create a private driveway via gates, walls and the like, where as that's not an option for the poor, so the rich have a greater expectation of privacy.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Mentioning class here serves to point out how often the law favors the rich in subtle ways. The rich can create a private driveway via gates, walls and the like, where as that's not an option for the poor, so the rich have a greater expectation of privacy.
    Right, I understand that, but I could also say that poor people generally shop in stores while rich people order online and from catalogs and hence often have deliveries, and therefore this decision favors poor people over the rich.

    Either way, it's a distant, stupid, questionable, illogical distraction from what is otherwise a horrible decision for so many other, better reasons.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Mentioning class here serves to point out how often the law favors the rich in subtle ways. The rich can create a private driveway via gates, walls and the like, where as that's not an option for the poor, so the rich have a greater expectation of privacy.
    Right, I understand that, but I could also say that poor people generally shop in stores while rich people order online and from catalogs and hence often have deliveries, and therefore this decision favors poor people over the rich.

    Either way, it's a distant, stupid, questionable, illogical distraction from what is otherwise a horrible decision for so many other, better reasons.

    Thats a terrible analogy.

    You have a right to privacy. This ruling essentially grants those with more money more privacy.

    Yes its a stupid ruling, for many reasons.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.