×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Student Sues FBI For Planting GPS Tracker

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the jiffy-lube-should-check-for-these-things-by-default dept.

Privacy 586

GabriellaKat submits this snippet from Yahoo! news, writing "'Yasir Afifi, 20, says a mechanic doing an oil change on his car in October discovered the device stuck with magnets between his right rear wheel and exhaust. They weren't sure what it was, but Afifi had the mechanic remove it and a friend posted photos of it online to see whether anyone could identify it. Two days later, Afifi says, agents wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment in San Jose, Calif., and demanded their property back.' Now he has decided to sue the FBI. This story was also covered last year when he found the tracking device."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

586 comments

So who is he really? (-1, Troll)

HisMother (413313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378314)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?

Re:So who is he really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378334)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]",

Exactly! Government agencies never do anything wrong and never target innocent citizens! All hail our three lettered overlords!

Re:So who is he really? (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378420)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]",

Exactly! Government agencies never do anything wrong and never target innocent citizens! All hail our three lettered overlords!

take into consideration that he is a Muslim. The Mozzies idea of "not doing anything wrong" includes vandalising war memorials, sending hate letters to soldiers and sometimes even planting bombs. Their idea of right and wrong is reversed by the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad (may piss be upon him)

Re:So who is he really? (1, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378460)

Wow. Too much Fox News FTL. While I certainly agree that the Islamic religion is a particularly nefarious one (only marginally ahead of Christianity, mind you), the vast majority of Muslims are normal people that just happen to believe something differently than you do.

Re:So who is he really? (1, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378722)

>>>Muslims are normal people that just happen to believe something differently than you do.

"Wrongthought"

It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.

".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an

Re:So who is he really? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378464)

I couldn't find an appropriate moderation category, so I'm just going to call you an idiot.

Re:So who is he really? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378486)

You forgot beating their wives, gouging out their womens' clitorises in the name of chastity, making women wear bed sheets in the name of modesty, murdering women who dishonor their families by getting raped, murdering homosexuals, murdering women who date non-Muslims, murdering apostates, murdering people for suggesting that insulting Islam is not a capitol crime (just happened to a politician in Pakistan), murdering critics of Islam (RIP Theo Van Gogh), ironically rioting over political cartoons that suggest Muslims are violent, etc... Yes, piss AND shit AND puke AND HIV-infected blood be upon Mohammed, that murdering pedophile.

Re:So who is he really? (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378708)

And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.

Re:So who is he really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378498)

What did they do wrong?

Did they arrest him without cause, torture him, imprison him for decades without any trial?

Or did they simply cause a minor inconvenience as part of an ongoing investigation, one that he was simply lucky to even notice?

No case to answer here.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378614)

That's not what he's saying. The FBI don't target people without a reason. Nobody does anything without a reason.

For some reason the FBI felt he was worth following for a bit. I'm pretty certain they didn't arbitrarily pick him on a whim, or because he was a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything interesting. They had a reason. We don't know what it was.

Re:So who is he really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378628)

If CAIR is helping him maybe you should look at why CAIR helps peaple in the USA

Re:So who is he really? (0, Redundant)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378346)

He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q [reddit.com]

Re:So who is he really? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378476)

He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q [reddit.com]

I'm sure I've done the same. I have a pet (completely hypothetical) theory of where in Birmingham, UK, you could plant a car bomb to have a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport, and I'm bound to have discussed it on some mailing list, newsgroup or forum at some point in the last 20 years.

I don't think it would justify bugging me.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

gfreeman (456642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378540)

Brum, or a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport ...

Fair trade off I'd say.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378658)

aw.

You know the classic romantic trope, where the girl is plain or even ugly, but over time reveals herself to be beautiful on the inside.

That's Brum.

Re:So who is he really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378692)

If he hadn't died last year I'd think you were my Dad. Dreaming up hypothetical terrorist atrocities against Birmingham was practically his hobby.

Wondering if you were also a Brummie I clicked on your blog. It's not well:
Fatal error: Cannot access empty property in /usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/hartnup.net/httpdocs/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bdprt/bdp-referral-db.php on line 34

Re:So who is he really? (5, Informative)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378478)

He did not do that -- it was a friend of his. This means that if you say something stupid, but clearly non-threatening, on the Internet, that the FBI has a right to spy on everyone you know. That, to me, is an extremely troubling precedent to set.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378506)

So, discovering glaring holes in the security infrastructure in the US is now an offense warranting surveillance and covert ops? Did you read his statement?

"i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. "

The guy was criticizing the US "war on terror" and how its just a show to keep the stupid cheeple down. Nobody in their right mind could read his post and get the notion that he was in any way or form even remotely interested in blowing stuff up. This was the best example of DHS being used for political motives ever.

Re:So who is he really? (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378514)

no.
you've got your facts wrong.

his friend made a comment on reddit about how insane it is to obsess about terrorists blowing up shopping malls.

"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"

that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.

but he did so while being brown which makes it far far more serious.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378584)

that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.

What gives you the idea we're not?

Re:So who is he really? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378612)

because when this story hit the news the first time there were so very very many people on here gleefully talking about checking their own cars for such bugs.
mainly because they wanted a chance to take them apart and examine them.

Re:So who is he really? (2)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378348)

There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip.

Yeah if I found a device on my car, I'd damn keep it for my own amusement.
When the scaredy clowns in their pussy vests came back for it. "What property, I know the FBI doesn't do illegal things to citizens, so you must be mistaken. Why don't you both go on down to the gym and pump each other".

Re:So who is he really? (4, Informative)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378394)

There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip

You're joking right?

The "phamplet press" of colonial time was 100% biased to whatever side of the political fence the editors sat on, and would print rumors and innuendo in ways that would make the editors of the weekly world news blanch

They did occasionally get things right, like when they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings (vindicatated 200+ years later), but they also printed stuff that would easily get you sued for libel and slander today.
Considering the founding fathers went out of their way NOT to put limits on it, and considering the state of the press at the time of the constitution really illustrates just how far-reaching freedom of the press should be...

Re:So who is he really? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378532)

>>>they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings

"busted"? Really? Are white men not allowed to have sex with black women (or vice-versa)? How colonial of you. --- From what illustrations I've seen, Sally was a gorgeous woman and I would have sex with her too. (With her permission of course - I'm too submissive to force someone to do something they don't want.)

Re:So who is he really? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378352)

Isn't it obvious ?

"Yasir Afifi"

That sounds like a terrorist name to me! And he's studying, clearly to make bombs! I bet he looks arab too!

I'm being sarcastic, but I don't think I'm too far off.

Re:So who is he really? (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378370)

To paraphrase: "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"

People like you should never ever ever serve on a criminal jury.

Re:So who is he really? (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378372)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?

  • Or could have the same name as OBL's second cousin.
  • Or some FBI agent misspelt OBL's second cousin while punching in the "suspect" database.
  • Or OBL's second cousin has grudge against this guy over some girlfriend (that would be OBL's third cousin) and ratted on this guy to FBI.
  • Or OBL's second cousin is having a side business of ratting out five suspects per month to FBI at the rate of 1000$ per named suspect.
  • Or Al Que`da has a counter intelligence operation where its operatives name so many innocent people to FBI to dilute and scatter FBI's resources.

Republicans are a strange breed. When it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".

But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.

Go figure.

Re:So who is he really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378664)

Wasn't this done under Obama? Pretty sure he's a Democrat.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378386)

You sound like my art teacher, after I showed her video of cops beating an innocent jogger walking his dog. "I'm sure the cops had a good reason to beat him."

Riiight. More likely the cops (fbi) are Sick with power, and they do these things simply because they can, not because the citizen did anything wrong.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378558)

anyone who thinks being put in positions of authority doesn't turn ordinary nice people into sadists needs to read up on the Stanford Prison
Experiment.

Re:So who is he really? (0)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378700)

The sad thing is that you don't even realize how paranoid and ignorant your comment makes you look.

We know that on any given day, police officers in a major city will be involved with dozens if not hundreds of use-of-force incidents. We know that, as a general rule, the vast majority of those will be completely justified. Therefore, any time you're presented with a video clip which shows cops using force, the rational person should be asking "what is the context that justifies this action". Whereas the irrational fool will immediately go off on a rant about the damn fascist pigs oppressing the poor innocent citizen something something something FIGHT DA POWA and pass the joint ...

It's not a question of beliefs - it's a question of statistics. I understand them, and you're blind to them because of your hateful ideology. You're no different than the bigot who thinks that every muslim he sees is probably a terrorist plotting the demise of western civilization. You need to pull your head out of your ass if you want to actually see the world as it is; otherwise, don't complain when everything you see looks like shit.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378398)

Who says they wouldn't be? The cost of those devices probably isn't huge, and once you've got them distributed you can probably loosely track a few dozen people for each agent on the case. Why wouldn't they widen the net to people who have some third-, fourth-, or fifth-degree connection to an actual "person of interest"? It seems like it would be terribly efficient to me.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378428)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?

You are the reason that our civil liberties are being eroded so effectively these days. "He was being investigated by the FBI, therefore he must have been doing something wrong?" Are you insane? Mind you, this is not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization, but is it ever prudent to give anyone that much unchecked authority? Even if the FBI as an organization was totally beyond reproach (which it isn't), you still need to take into account that it is composed of people, all of whom are imperfect. Sometimes people make mistakes. Other times, people maliciously abuse their authority. I know when this case originally came about, it was revealed that Afifi's friend had made some ill-advised, but obviously non-threatening statements on Reddit. We also know that he is of Middle Eastern descent. Is it not possible that this is all the FBI ever had on him and were grotesquely overstepping their bounds? Please consider these things before you say that sort of bullshit in public again, it really hurts all of us.

P.S. -- What fucking business would it be of the FBI if he were Ahmedinijad's nephew? It is not illegal in the United States to be related to someone!

Re:So who is he really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378588)

"not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization" WTF? You never hear of COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org] ? If murdering Americans [wikipedia.org] because you don't like their politics doesn't qualify them as a "nefarious organization" then what will?

Sorry my friend but the FBI has been playing fast and loose with the law since the day the branch was created. All this "war on terror" has done is give them another excuse in their bag for screwing with people. Hell the sad part is they can get any search warrant rubber stamped and five will get you ten they were either too lazy or didn't even have the most flimsy of excuses to screw with this guy so they didn't bother.

I bet if the Founding Fathers could see what the three letter orgs have done with their constitution they would rip it up and start over.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378592)

the comment in question was damned tame too.
I see worse here on slashdot daily.

"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"

The really sad thing is that he really did have to fear being bugged/tracked as a result simply because he's brown where you or I wouldn't get any such bullshit.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378570)

It's the old - "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he weren't guilty of SOMETHING!"

Re:So who is he really? (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378576)

Exactly. If the authorities are interested in him, he must have done something wrong. I mean, that's just straight up logic. It's not like he should be presumed innocent or someting like that.

Re:So who is he really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378618)

Are you seriously that clueless? Pay attention.

Re:So who is he really? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378690)

So you believe the FBI to be infallible and that guilt by association is valid?

Re:So who is he really? (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378706)

The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?

The most important thing is that you NEVER question the agencies, the government or the police. Not only is it unthinkable that their complete policy is wrong, even small mistakes are impossible.

Way to go! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378316)

If we're going to take people's freedom away and treat them like criminals, then why the fuck does America exist?

If we're going to act like some police state or other oppressive regimes, then America is dead.

And if you really think we need this kind of monitoring to be safe, I'd like to point out that even the most monitored states around the World aren't any safer - if anything they're LESS safe because it allows for the abuse by the watchers.

If the FBI gets away with this, I'll consider America and Her values to be completely dead as opposed to mostly dead because of the PATRIOT Act.

Sigh (0)

Fysx (1992304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378320)

Once again the FBI wants to takeover everyones rights. There is no reason for what they did, they're just bullies. Also, first post :D

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378344)

Also, first post :D

I hate to bring it to you kid, but it wasn't first post.

Re:Sigh (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378416)

At least Greedo shot first.

In a free country (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378322)

This guy would succeed in suing the absolute shit out of them, and the agents responsible would be fired (all the way up the chain). The FBI has repeatedly spit on the cornerstone of our legal system which supposedly guarantees a man to be innocent before proven guilty. They have turned it around once again and forced this man to prove his innocence.

Now let's see just how free this country really is.

Re:In a free country (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378458)

If a free country, the agents responsible would already be tarred-and-feather by the People (from which all legitimate authority derives).

Constitution:

"We, the People of the State of Maryland..... declare: That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient."

Re:In a free country (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378594)

Don't you know? This is the land of the free (unless you're suspected of something). Guilty until proven innocent by a jury of people that you have nothing in common with. Uh, I mean, peers.

OTOH, he did make some comments about blowing up a mall. Not that he was planning to do so, but about how easy it would be. He probably had some other profiling flags, too.The thing with the FBI is, they don't really have to justify anything if they don't feel like it.

Re:In a free country (3, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378616)

To be the devil's advocate - gathering evidence IS the attempt of proving guilt.

The original Reddit post (5, Informative)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378324)

Re:The original Reddit post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378674)

I think it's obvious what I'd do... take a picture, post about it, get all the fact right and then go stick it on somebody else's car that's driving cross country.

Why'd he mention it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378326)

He should have had some fun, like putting it on a random car at an airport and phoning in a "suspicious device" and calling the local news media. The ensuing circus would be fun.

Re:Why'd he mention it? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378400)

except he really WOULD have committed a crime then and the slashbots here would be saying "look what he did, he IS a criminal" instead of "he must of done something wrong. We don't know what it is exactly but the FBI doesn't hunt people who are good citizens."

Re:Why'd he mention it? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378676)

I'm curious about the legal status of such property.

If someone dumps an old, broken TV in my yard can I claim it as my own?

If someone sticks some piece of trash to my car, can I claim it as my own?

If someone claims ownership of something which they claim to have put inside my car against my wishes can I insist that they prove ownership in court before giving it back to them?

Re:Why'd he mention it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378488)

> He should have had some fun, like putting it on a random car at an airport and phoning in a "suspicious device"
> and calling the local news media.

Fun to think about, but it's a crime. Besides...they were monitoring him anyway so I'd be REALLY careful about phoning in anything ;-)

A quieter option would be to place the device "Enemy of the State"-style on some local congress member's, police chief's or similar's car. And not say anything. With luck for them the FBI would just as quietly remove it again but if discovered, it might blow up big time since those people are, well, a little bit more equal before the law than somebody named Yassir Afifi.

demanded their property back (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378358)

"Losers weepers; finders keepers." "Posession is nine-tenths of the laws," and so on. Balls thrown into my yard become my property - same applies with GPS devices found in my driveway.

The FBI would simply have to follow "the due process of law" if they wanted their discarded item back. I'm sure that would be most embarassing and reveal things they'd rather not reveal, but then I guess they shouldn't have left the GPS in my yard.

Dicks.

Re:demanded their property back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378546)

Balls thrown into your yard do not, in fact, become your property. May I suggest getting a walking stick and yelling at the kids to stay off your lawn?

Ok (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378376)

Man presents himself as an innocent victim of the cruel police. Slashdotters lash out without knowing anything about the case.
 
News at 11.

Re:Ok (2)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378426)

Well he does have photos of the device, a unique FCC ID that traces back to the FBI, and a plausible story of being pulled over. It's not like he's some paranoid "I was abducted" fool. Last I checked, the legality of inserting a tracking device on someone was questionable.

Article not worth my time. (-1)

hittman007 (206669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378396)

What we have is a claim that anyone can make versus an organization that is not allowed to talk about it during an investigation ironically to protect that person. What a world we live in.

If the FBI presses charges that explain why they were investigating let me know. Or when they drop their case and can then talk about it let me know. Until either of these are done we are drawing conclusions on half of the story, if that...

Re:Article not worth my time. (5, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378452)

It's easy for the FBI to show the legality of their surveillance operation: simply produce the warrant signed by a judge. Clearly it doesn't matter if the suspect knows about it or not, otherwise they wouldn't demand their device back. There is no logical reason at this point not to tell the suspect why he's monitored: if the suspect is guilty, he very well knows why he is monitored anyways, and if he is not, he can probably exactly tell the FBI why it's all a waste of time and money.

Dear FBI, if you have nothing to hide you can clearly show under what jurisdiction you are monitoring people, right?

Good for him (3, Insightful)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378412)

If it were me I would have called the bomb squad and made sure all the TV crews were there to see them pull the tracking device off. I think the government and friends have granted themselves far too many powers since 9/11 etc and all of which wouldnt make a damn difference had it all happen again. Its a convenient justification to make it easier for which ever department has the resposibilities to do something that could be a bit easier if they were able to spy on you, read your emails, listen to your calls, check your bank transactions, etc, etc and now track your every movements. None of which is going to stop a guy with a cash plane ticket and a box knife is it now? I think the balance between privacy and security has now long been broken and ever day it seems to be getting worse. Its only when people like this guy stand up and make a point that it shouldnt be happening that something might ever possibly change.

Re:Good for him (2)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378512)

I'd love to see somebody do that, but in practise there would be a risk of the bomb squad flipping out and using a controlled explosion. Bye bye car, and bye bye all evidence to use against the feds.

babys; 4th dimension, yet another intention? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378414)

they sleep near those TVs. see you at the multitudinous million baby play-dates being scheduled world wide. be there, or be scared?

our intentions for US/you;

1. DEWEAPONIZATION (not a real word, but they like it) almost nothing else good happens until some progress here, 'they' say.

2. ALL BABYS CREATED/TO BE TREATED, EQUALLY. (a rough interpretation (probably cost us. seems like a no-brainer but they expressed that we fail on that one too(:)->) 'we do not need any 300$ 'strollers', or even to ride in your smelly cars/planes etc..., until such time as ALL of the creators' innocents have at least food, shelter, & some loving folks nearby.' again, this is a dealbreaker, so pay attention.

3. THOU SHALT NOT VACCINATE IRRESPONSIBLY. this appears to be a stop-gap intention.

the genuine feelings expressed included; in addition to the lack of acknowledgment of the advances/evolution of our tiny bodies/dna (including consciousness & intellect), almost nobody knows anymore what's in those things (vaccines) (or they'd tell us), & there's rumor much of it is less than good (possibly fatal) for ANY of us. if it were good for us we'd be gravitating towards it, instead of it being shoved in our little veins, wrecking them, & adversely affecting our improving immune systems/dna/development? at rite-aid, they give the mommies 100$ if they let them stick their babys with whoknowswhat? i can see why they're (the little ones) extremely suspicious? many, oddly? have strong inclinations to want to grow up to be reporters of nefarious life threatening processes/'conspiracies', as they sincerely believe that's 'stuff that REALLY matters', but they KNOW that things are going to be out in the open soon, so they intend to put their acute/astute senses/information gathering abilities to the care & feeding of their fellow humans. no secrets to cover up with that goal.

4. AN END TO MANUFACTURED 'WEATHER'.

sorte like a no(areosol tankers)-fly zone being imposed over the whole planet. the thinking is, the planet will continue to repair itself, even if we stop pretending that it's ok/nothing's happening. after the weather manipulation is stopped (& it will be) it could get extemely warm/cold/blustery some days. many of us will be moving inland..., but we'll (most of us anyway) be ok, so long as we keep our heads up. conversely, the manufactured 'weather' puts us in a state of 'theatre' that allows US to think that we needn't modify our megaslothian heritage of excessivity/disregard for ourselves, others, what's left of our environment etc...? all research indicates that spraying chemicals in the sky is 100% detrimental to our/planet's well being (or they'd talk to US about it?). as for weather 'extemes', we certainly appear to be in a bleeding rash of same, as well as that all that bogus seismic activity. throws our advanced tiny baby magnets & chromosomes into crisis/escape mode, so that's working? we're a group whose senses are more available to us (like monkeys?) because we're not yet totally distracted by the foibles of man'kind'. we've saw nuclear war being touted on PBS as an envromental repair (?depopulation? (makes the babys' 'accountants' see dark red)) tool? yikes. so what gives? thanks for your patience & understanding while we learn to express our intentions. everybody has some. let us know. come to some of our million baby play-dates. no big hurry? catch your breath. we'll wait a bit more. thanks.

do the math. check out YOUR dna/potential. thanks again.

I would have just put in on a long distance semi (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378424)

and left it at that.

I mean, what are they going to do to you?

Too bad you could not get it onto a plane. I wonder how much trouble you would get into taking it or trying to take it on checked luggage?

Re:I would have just put in on a long distance sem (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378500)

Should just DHL it to the Iranian embassy or even overseas to China or something.

Re:I would have just put in on a long distance sem (5, Informative)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378552)

I mean, what are they going to do to you?

I don't know, like say you are a terrorist and a Unlawful combatant [wikipedia.org] , as such you don't have any rights and put you in to Guatemala Bay prison [wikipedia.org] , torture you there and release you after a few months [wikipedia.org] . If he tries to sue, the Obama administration will pressure the courts to not hear the case and to drop the charges. [commondreams.org] Oh wait, that was the CIA, o.k. never mind.

FBI (+/- Colon) Get Down On The Ground! (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378596)

I can imagine this now:

[Man tries to take FBI tracker onto plane]

[X-Ray machine detects unusual item]

[Airport FBI Agent 1 attending x-ray machines draws gun at passenger with tracker]

"FBI: Get down on the ground! That's a bomb"

[FBI Agent 2 following the tracker]

"FBI Get down on the ground! That's not a bomb. It's..err.."

[FBI Agent 1 spins to see man pointing gun at him]

[Both FBI Agents startle and shoot the other]

...

[America Implodes]

Re:I would have just put in on a long distance sem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378600)

The system is rigged so that there is no chance you'll succeed in suing the FBI.

So, if you ever find one of these things on your car, call the local police, say "Someone has attached a suspicious device to my car. I think it might be a bomb!" Call the local media so they can come watch the bomb squad in action.

Re:I would have just put in on a long distance sem (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378642)

Too bad you could not get it onto a plane

I'm not sure you couldn't. It doesn't contain any sharp edges.

it's mine, no it's ours... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378436)

How would the FBI even prove their ownership, if he held back the device pending such proof?
I think, that's exactly why they were "aggressive" and "hostile" to get it back...because they noticed, this could potentially be pretty bad for them (which it was anyway).

Another thing is, what if he had thrown it away? Could they sue him for property-loss damages incurred?? It's your car, so can't you work on it, add and remove things as you see fit?

What exactly is illegal about this? (-1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378494)

Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal

Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:

1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so
3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"

Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.

Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.

I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.

tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?

Re:What exactly is illegal about this? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378622)

Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?

Well, you could probably be prosecuted under some sort of anti-stalking legislation, perhaps "harassment." If you start following me around, yes, I can actually report you to the police, and something may come of it.

Re:What exactly is illegal about this? (2)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378640)

tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with?

If you did it? Harassment and stalking.

If the FBI did it, and it was warranted , nothing. If the FBI did it, and it was unwarranted , nothing, after a very public lawsuit that gets settled.

Re:What exactly is illegal about this? (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378646)

It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.

Let's look at your facts, shall we?

1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)

Totally irrelevant to whether the search is legal. If I'm stopped by an officer as part of a traffic stop, refuse the officer entry to my vehicle (which is totally legal to do), and he grabs the keys and searches my vehicle anyways, that doesn't make the search legal despite the fact that it didn't damage the car in the least.

2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so

Irrelevant for much the same reason as the last one. Cars on public streets are still considered "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Also, it's more likely the car was parked in his driveway (where he found the device), or a privately owned parking lot.

3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"

So? If my phone is bugged without a warrant, just because it's an amateurish job does not mean that the wiretap was legal.

Re:What exactly is illegal about this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378660)

Invasion of Privacy.
Would be quite illegal without a signed warrant from a Judge. (as far as I understand US Law)

Real Lawyer, yes
But not USA.

He's a muslim. Fuck him. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378510)

The more of them that get the hint and leave America, the better.

Are you listening, CAIR?

At the time it was legal... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378550)

The question surrounding GPS tracking has been a topic for discussion for a few years now. Last year when this took place, I believe that a California court stated that it was equivalent to an officer tailing an individual, and a vehicle that was on public property could have the device attached to it without a warrant. According to the article, a Federal Appeals court over ruled this and claimed it unconstitutional.

From the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants
"Judges have disagreed over whether search warrants should be required for GPS tracking. Afifi's lawyers say they are filing this lawsuit in hopes of a decision saying that any use of tracking devices without a warrant in the United States is unconstitutional.

The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency.""

I agree with the student and his lawyers, I too feel this is unconstitutional, but IANAL. If his actions are truly suspicious and worthy of tracking, it should have been easy to get a judge to sign a warrant for the tracking. But what the government is doing is building intelligence to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since the signing of the Patriot Act, many of our civil liberties have been stripped from us and our own government no longer sees fit to work within the confines of the law that has been built off of the interpretation of our Constitution. The govt. is trying to tie this young man to a terrorist cell, and they don't have the evidence to support it.

"Demanded their property back" (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378568)

Some balls.

Subtlety is clearly their middle name, and also their first and last name. :P

Ridiculous (0)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378582)

Amazing how they can't seem to find time to shut down the Saudi religious schools in the US which use blatantly seditious indoctrination, but they can find all the time they need to go after a guy who's probably at worst just a 20 year old punk.

Of course this is the same federal government that can find a 100 illegals at the BP clean up site, but can't find the illegals at the day laborer site down the street from my office which is in one of the areas of metro DC with the largest populations of illegals in the region...

'We want our property back'? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35378652)

Talk about gall.

By the way, is it also OK to "attach" a tracker (trojan) to a computer system?

And then when you're caught, demand "your property back"?

Cry Me A River (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35378672)

Come on... extensive ties to the mid-east... repeated travels there.... and supported by CAIR... OH NO... THERE'S NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THAT.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...