×

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!

Location Privacy Act Approved By California Legislature

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the coordinates-undefined dept.

Government 65

New submitter wermske writes "Ars Technica and ZDNet report the Location Privacy Act of 2012 (SB-1434) was passed by the California legislature on Wednesday. The California Location Privacy Act, co-sponsored by the ACLU of California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, updates California privacy law to reflect the modern mobile world by providing needed protection against warrantless government access to a person's location information. Recent reports indicate that cell phone tracking is routine and few agencies obtain warrants for such surveillance. The need for this protection resurfaced last week when warrantless GPS tracking appeared again in the national news — a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant. The scope of the Location Privacy Act would include gathering GPS or other location-tracking data from cell phones, tablets, computers, automobiles, etc. The next stop is the governor's desk; however, there is concern that Governor Jerry Brown may not sign this act into law. In 2011, Gov. Brown vetoed an attempt at enforcing stricter privacy rules."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

65 comments

Federal Supremacy (0)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#41113989)

Wouldn't the federal government trump state law here? Why would they care that it was illegal on the state level if they were doing Official Federal Government Snooping?

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114051)

Things are federally legal and locally banned/restricted all the time.(guns is an obvious one)

I would assume this would mean the fed could still track you without a warrant, but any state/city etc police would need one.

IANAL

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114243)

Things are federally legal and locally banned/restricted all the time.(guns is an obvious one)

IANAL

...and medical marijuana is another.

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year ago | (#41114463)

Er, medical marijuana is the other way around. It is banned federally, so even though CA allows it, it is still illegal.

Re:Federal Supremacy (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year ago | (#41114627)

This could be clarified very easy by reading the Tenth Amendment. And since the 10th was ratified AFTER the actual 1786 constitution, it supercedes anything that was written at that time. Powers not given to Congress are reserved to the Member States of the Union.

The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested (see the case of the Amish farmer who was arrested because he sold milk to non-residents, but is still allowed to sell to PA residents).

Back to topic: If California's government wants to ban themselves from taking cellphone or ISP records of conversations without a warrant, they can. That won't stop the federals though if your conversation crosses the CA line.

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115197)

Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested

The feds have stepped into california, arrested people and seized property when they were doing something legal per state law, so apparently we have less influence than you might think.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year ago | (#41115391)

As far as I have heard, it has been limited to federally controlled areas like National parks.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#41115295)

The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested

Where have you been living last couple decades?
As I understand it, almost anything can be banned by utterly stretching the "interstate commerce clause" and supported by the supreme court. Recently, there had been numerous crackdowns on the totally legitimate (by CA law) marijuana dispensaries.

Or are you describing how things should be if we lived in a sane world?

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year ago | (#41115761)

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Certainly there is not a word in the constitution that gives that power to the Justices any more than the other branches. The Constitution wisely divided this power among all three branches and the state governments." - Thomas Jefferson (and close friend of James Madison, the actual author of the Constitution).

Madison vetoed many many bills with the argument that Congress can not exercise powers that are not specifically enumerated in the list he created. Oh and I'd like to know: If the federals have the power to ban any and all things they desire, why haven't they banned the sale of natural, unpasteurized milk in Pennsylvania and other states? (ponder). Probably because they know they don't have juris diction over a member state's territory.

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41123291)

Or are you describing how things should be if we lived in a sane world?

*insert 2 paragraphs of fluff*

A simply 'yes' would have sufficed.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year ago | (#41115603)

The supreme court has already weighed in favor of the feds, see Gonzalez v Raich (June 2005). So the federal law making possession an offense still holds. There are reports of arrest here and there, but as I understand the feds are not willing to push it and are limiting the number of arrest they make.
 
But if you are caught in a federally controlled like a National park, all bets are off.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41118179)

Well, the Federal Government occasionally steps in when there's a "risk" that it could cross state lines. Drugs, kidnapping, and bank robbery are some examples.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about a year ago | (#41115307)

Well here is what you do to that. First the state and local governments grow a pair and start passing laws that restrict what the federal government can do within the boarders of the state. This is all perfectly legal according to the 10th amendment.

Then you start enforcing these laws at the local level. When the TSA pedo goons molests a child during a search, you arrest them and charge them. When FBI/AFT/DEA agents kick down the doors to a perfectly legal marijuana shop, you file charges against those agents and arrest them.

You start sending a message to the individual ground agents that they are not above state laws.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121161)

Mod parent up.

What's the difference between a Federal agent and God?

God doesn't think he's a Federal agent.

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115365)

Medical marijuana is federally legal now? Oh, I see, you're just a moron who can't read the post he quoted.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about a year ago | (#41116193)

Go fuck yourself moron. Medical marijuana is perfectly legal in some states. I never said it as legal on the federal level.

Re:Federal Supremacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41125287)

I replied to this AC post:

Things are federally legal and locally banned/restricted all the time.(guns is an obvious one)

IANAL

...and medical marijuana is another.

If that was you, you obviously DID say it was legal on the federal level, making you a semi-literate moron.
If that wasn't you, you obviously have difficulty with the concept of a threaded discussion, making you a semi-literate moron.

Either way, congratulations on outing yourself as a semi-literate moron, since you neglected to tick the AC checkbox this time!

Re:Federal Supremacy (3, Informative)

bmimatt (1021295) | about a year ago | (#41114187)

Yes, but the feds already have the patriot act and such.  This, if signed off on by Brown, will prevent CA cops from unchecked snooping.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year ago | (#41114371)

The federal government rarely trumps state law, the feds can not compel the state to follow federal law but can cut their funding if they choose not too. If the feds were in California breaking California law, or snooping on someone in California outside of California, then there would be a new case for the supreme court regarding the 10th amendment. Too bad Jerry Brown will never sign it, it would be an interesting case, and I would hope that the Supreme court would rule correctly.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

greggem (1044620) | about a year ago | (#41114527)

Local (i.e. non-federal) law enforcement would be required to comply with the state law.

Basically, the Federal Constitution provides the minimum rights afforded to everyone in every state. No state can have a law which would reduce those rights. The states are entirely free to give people more rights and freedoms, however. Many States do just that. In some states there are provisions of the state constitution which are word-for-word copies of parts of the federal constitution, but which have been interpreted differently by the state courts.

One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail. The Nevada Supreme Court says: that may be a "reasonable" seizure within the meaning of the federal constitution, but it sure as hell isn't "reasonable" as we interpret our state constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence you found during the subsequent inventory of the defendant's car is therefore excluded.

Another way to look at it is that the laws aren't really in conflict. The federal rule excludes evidence under certain circumstances. The state law excludes evidence under those circumstances and other additional circumstances. The federal rule isn't about what evidence is allowed in; it's about when it must be kept out.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year ago | (#41114751)

>>>No state can have a law which would reduce those rights.

That's only been true since about 1900 in a gradual process by the SCOTUS called incorporation. Prior to that point states didn't have to obey the Constitution. For example Congress is barred from establishing an official state religion, but the many States continued to have their own state/taxpayer supported religion upto ~1840.

>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail.

Yeah but they also ruled any evidence found is not admissable, because the officer had no cause to randly pull-over your car and impede your travel. He can ticket you for the safety violation of not wearing a belt, but if he finds drugs then he is exceeding the purpose of the stop & the evidence must be thrown out.

This is why if you get pulled-over by DHS along one of their internal checkpoints, you are not required to comply with their demands to see inside your car or trunk. No warrant == no right to search your person or effects.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

greggem (1044620) | about a year ago | (#41115377)

>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail.

Yeah but they also ruled any evidence found is not admissable, because the officer had no cause to randly pull-over your car and impede your travel. He can ticket you for the safety violation of not wearing a belt, but if he finds drugs then he is exceeding the purpose of the stop & the evidence must be thrown out.

Who said it was random? You weren't wearing a seat belt. If he can arrest you he can search your car. There are a couple of different exceptions that allow this search without a warrant. One is called the "search incident to arrest." This allows the officer to search your person and your immediate vicinity when you are arrested. It is well established that this includes your car (though probably not the trunk).

Of course if you are arrested for that seat belt ticket, the officer isn't required to leave your car there on the road. It will be towed and impounded. For defense against claims of damage or theft from the vehicle, it may be subject to an inventory search. This search must be done according to a department policy, but they can definitely look in any containers in the vehicle (including the trunk). Any evidence found during a lawful inventory search is most definitely not going to be thrown out.

This is why if you get pulled-over by DHS along one of their internal checkpoints, you are not required to comply with their demands to see inside your car or trunk. No warrant == no right to search your person or effects.

There are numerous exceptions [wikipedia.org] to the search warrant requirement. One is called the "automobile exception." If you are stopped for any legal reason and the officer develops probable cause to believe there is evidence or contraband in your vehicle (e.g. you reek of recently burned marijuana), they are not required to hold you on the side of the road and get a warrant prior to searching.

Re:Federal Supremacy (1)

number11 (129686) | about a year ago | (#41115059)

Wouldn't the federal government trump state law here? Why would they care that it was illegal on the state level if they were doing Official Federal Government Snooping?

I dunno. Are federal personnel allowed to violate state laws? ALL state laws? Let's say, for instance, that there's a state law that prohibits sex with chickens, but no such federal law. Can an FBI agent get amorous with chickens with impunity? And if not, what exactly makes snooping GPS records different?

It's not real clear from the article exactly what the bill provides for. Can a cell company voluntarily hand over the data? Would the cell company be liable if it turned over the data without a warrant? I suppose that if the feds did it without entering the State of California, it would be hard to get them extradited to stand trial in Sacramento, but the cell company has to have a local presence to maintain the towers.

Now what about private tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114065)

Any intent to do anything about that?

California (1)

pitchingchris (2591965) | about a year ago | (#41114089)

I'm sure its not coincidence that this came right after the supreme court ruling. Maybe the wording of the current law allows them to track GPS, but California sees a way to rework the scope. Are there more crooks in California ? Maybe the people lobbying for privacy are scammers..

Evidence (4, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#41114125)

Proof that a broke clock (California) is right twice a day.

Re:Evidence (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114379)

Proof that a broke clock (California) is right twice a day.

California should just leave the rest of the other 49 fucking bible thumping states to their own demise.
Guess what, without California the US is nothing. Ok you'd still have Texas but that's not something to be proud of.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114631)

Guess what, without California the US is nothing
New york, Michigan, and about 47 other states would probably have something to say about that...

California would be *nothing* without Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (you know where they get all that water and power they need). They would be nothing without Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas (you know where they grow a good majority your food). Sure Cal grows a good amount and produces a good amount of that stuff. It would however die quickly without the others selling them goods. It is overpopulated and under-taxed for the amount of social programs there and the amount of goods needed to be self sufficient. That ended LONG ago (mid 1940s).

If you dont realize that you have a bit of growing up to do to realize you need the very people you despise to take care of you and your self entitlement.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115165)

Feel that indignation you're experiencing?

That's what many Californians feel when they're the brunt of whatever joke or derogatory insult is applied to them.

California grows a good amount of food? Try over 30 billion dollars worth. I think you'll find that those states you name might find themselves doing without California too. Not to mention the other products of their industry, as agriculture is only a small part of the overall California economy. California also pays a good chunk more into the Federal coffers than they get back.

Yet California is the scapegoat.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115287)

Guess what, without California the US is nothing
New york, Michigan, and about 47 other states would probably have something to say about that...

California would be *nothing* without Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (you know where they get all that water and power they need). They would be nothing without Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas (you know where they grow a good majority your food). Sure Cal grows a good amount and produces a good amount of that stuff. It would however die quickly without the others selling them goods. It is overpopulated and under-taxed for the amount of social programs there and the amount of goods needed to be self sufficient. That ended LONG ago (mid 1940s).

If you dont realize that you have a bit of growing up to do to realize you need the very people you despise to take care of you and your self entitlement.

My dear Sir, California is the 8th largest economy in the world. So yes, without that silly blue state the rest of the US would be drastically resized. Economically, politically, culturally. As we say in Europe, California is the state that the rest of the americans love to hate. They must be doing something right, even with all the problems they have.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115681)

Only the densely populated areas are blue. When people are packed densely, competition for housing drives up rents and prices, competition for jobs drive down wages. Those who cannot compete cry for government intervention to distort the market in their favor. Politicians who seek to secure voting blocs are all too eager to dole out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is easier to be lazy than to be ambitious.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115749)

It's easier to be selfish and condemn others than it is to feel compassion.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115967)

Let's pay people to dig holes in the grounds with spoons! Gotta have some jobs to stimulate the 'conomy!

Re:Evidence (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year and a half ago | (#41129373)

Only the densely populated areas are blue. When people are packed densely, competition for housing drives up rents and prices, competition for jobs drive down wages. Those who cannot compete cry for government intervention to distort the market in their favor. Politicians who seek to secure voting blocs are all too eager to dole out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is easier to be lazy than to be ambitious.

Actually, it's more like when people are sparsely populated they have no compassion for their neighbors and are uneducated and that's why they're red. See, I can make shit up and generalize as well as you can. Also, please note that, for the most part, Red states get more from the feds than the give, and Blue states give more then they receive. Yes, that's a fact. Look it up. It's easy.

Re:Evidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115627)

Guess what, without California the US is nothing

California would be *nothing* without Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (you know where they get all that water and power they need).

While I live in California and do enjoy a little ribbing, we in Northern California get most of our water and power from local reservoirs and gas fired power plants.

They would be nothing without Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas (you know where they grow a good majority your food).

California grows and raises pretty much every crop and product you can name, and exports a significant majority of it, we'd do just fine without anyone else, although some farmers would starve if they weren't selling their entire crop to other states.

It is overpopulated and under-taxed for the amount of social programs there and the amount of goods needed to be self sufficient.

We don't have a taxation problem, we have a stupid legislature spending problem. They got high off the spending during the fast economic times and wouldn't adjust to the current one. I live in a small town about an hour from Sacramento. Not incorporated, middle class to upper middle class, maybe 20,000 people...10 miles by 5 miles in size would be about right.

In the last year, we had our 32nd and 33rd parks built to curry favor with local residents who had been promised a park and wanted it, even though there were 2 or 3 others within walking distance and most are empty most of the time because its 100 degrees here in the summer and 50 and raining all winter. Couple of million spent there. We also water all of the parks into mud and over fertilize them so they need to be cut twice weekly, which keeps the public works guys in jobs. We did a roadside beautification project on one road where the shrubs and bark and landscaping work sits behind an open drainage ditch full of waist high weeds and across the street are the remains of the former asphalt road, decayed and also covered with waist high weeds. $300,000 for that. We put in a pedestrian walkway for $3M that nobody uses because its 1/10th the distance to just run across the street. The next town over paid $400k for street signs produced by the company that makes the signs for Rodeo Drive, and its a shitty little town that already had perfectly good street signs. We also plowed $10M into a downtown renewal, since the local politicians fondly remember the days of the 1970's and 80's when everyone went to the town center. We now have a really pretty downtown area that nobody goes to because everything there sucks and the traffic through town is too excessive.

Are we getting it yet? And this is just the funny business in my small town, let alone the car pool lanes we build statewide that are empty at rush hour and the other shenanigans. We get taxed plenty...8%+ on income, 9% on sales tax, good solid amount of property taxes, etc. My water bill on a modestly decent home is $500 every 2 months, and my electricity costs $500 a month.

If they increase taxes another penny, I'm moving. Not just moving my lips on that one. They wouldn't even buy my kids classroom a farking stapler, I had to get that myself. Its getting close to pitchforks and torches time...

Re:Evidence (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121139)

8% income tax and 9% sales tax?? Boo fucking hoo, you're getting off fucking light.

We're bent over and reamed here in the UK for 25% income tax (minimum with a ridiculous low threshold of £4800-something) and 20% VAT, and we're not even offered a fucking reacharound, so if you want to complain about something come live over here for a fucking year and pay over £6 for a gallon of gasoline.

Whiney little Yank cunt.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41123617)

he was talking about state tax... that is on top of the federal taxes... which start at 15% for low income and go on up....

You also get health care included on that, which for us is an ungodly amount - at least your 4800 minimum for a single person...

We are all just screwed financially - chill out....

Re:Evidence (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#41116819)

They would be nothing without... Oklahoma... (you know where they grow a good majority your food).

Pretty sure all they grow out here is fat people...

Re:Evidence (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#41114965)

California should just leave the rest of the other 49 fucking bible thumping states to their own demise.

As a Californian I have to say that California seems to be hurdling headlong into demise regardless of what the other 49 are doing.

Oh, and BTW; if I hear one more comment from any of my so-called "liberal" friends that the GOP is the party that promotes busting of the Bill of Rights by the Fed, I'm going to invite them here so I can sock them in the mouth.

We want our Governator back! (1)

photonyx (2507666) | about a year ago | (#41114347)

He promised!

Re:We want our Governator back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115657)

He promised!

That whole thing was pretty unfortunate in my opinion. Arnold said he'd get the job done, he was prepared to do it, the legislature stopped him, and he asked the people by referendum to give him the power to smash up the stupid budget boxes and spend money where it had to be spent. The people said no.

So we elected him to do something that needed to be done, but we really weren't prepared to follow through on it. Now we get what we deserve. Schools where we're laying off teachers, but buying ipads without an IT strategy because someone said the money had to be spent on that. Just bought my kids classroom a stapler and two packs of markers because they can't get supplies budgeted.

GPS signals coming from a phone? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#41114349)

a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.

Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.

I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.

If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.

Re:GPS signals coming from a phone? (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year and a half ago | (#41129391)

a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.

Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.

I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.

If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.

Yes, it never ceases to amaze me that most of the populace things that GPS is something your phone/mapper TRANSMITS. The damn TV shows are no help at all.

Jerry Brown? Against privacy? Say it ain't so! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114359)

inb4 Dead Kennedys lyrics dump!

It's only a matter of time, sayeth history (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#41114363)

If the old king would have abused the power, we, the free people of the US, need to prevent its use withot a warrant.

Shame on people who think otherwise. You don't deserve the vote in a free society.

Re:It's only a matter of time, sayeth history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114403)

Says the basement-dwelling, armchair general.

Re:It's only a matter of time, sayeth history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41117743)

You don't deserve the vote in a free society.

Yes, vote the way I want you to or you don't deserve to vote! Sounds like you're the one who doesn't want a democracy there, chief.

Re:It's only a matter of time, sayeth history (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year and a half ago | (#41129401)

Shame on people who think otherwise. You don't deserve the vote in a free society.

I always prefer that sentiment in the original German.

Laws are for peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114409)

If any of you actually believe the government will heed such laws you
are naive in the extreme.

Once a technology exists, it will be used, regardless of laws.

Don't believe me ? Think about police "radar", drones being used in the US,
tasers being used by the cops when a few harsh words would have sufficed,
etc.

The genie is out of the bottle.

If you do not want to be tracked by a cell phone, don't carry a cell phone. And that really is the bottom line.

Wait, wait wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114451)

>a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant

Since when do GPS devices GIVE a signal?

Jerry Brown against (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about a year ago | (#41114687)

Anyone know why Jerry Brown is against privacy protections? I thought he was big on civil liberties rather than being a "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type.

Is he still traumatized by 9/11 or something?

Re:Jerry Brown against (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#41115049)

He got elected, that's what happened. Before election, civil liberties are a good issue to win votes. After election, civil liberties are nothing but an obstacle.

Re:Jerry Brown against (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about a year ago | (#41115879)

But he has been elected before. He served two terms as governor in the late 70's & 80's.

  I was under the impresion that he was a proponent of civil liberties during his previous stint. Is that not correct or did he change his views?

Old Jerry always was one to suck up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41114727)

...to the Prison-Industrial-Complex. So yes, he no doubt will veto it.

criminal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41115965)

If you aren't a criminal, then why do you care.

Don't do anything wrong and they won't need to see where you have been. Actually, they won't care where you have been.......

Re:criminal... (1)

ranpel (1255408) | about a year ago | (#41116777)

Perhaps you're not a criminal today. I wonder what the future holds.

"Don't do anything wrong..." - Don't be a stupid, short-sighted, ignorant cunt. There, now we're even. I forgive you.

Not Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41117321)

First the location of my phone does not tell anyone where i am it simply tells them where my phone is. People do let wives, brothers, sisters and friends borrow a phone at times. The same is true of cars and computers. Nothing about my location is revealed by the location of those devices.
            What is next? should it be illegal to tell someone that I just saw Charley over at the tire store as that tells someone out there Charley's location? These things simply are not privacy issues at all.

           

GPS signal from phone? (1)

Branciforte (2437662) | about a year and a half ago | (#41119139)

I had no idea that phones produce "GPS signals". Fascinating.

Re:GPS signal from phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41119857)

Wil Wheaton has a message for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5iFe2NhBA

Summary Wrong (1)

anne on E. mouse cow (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121021)

GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone

The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gps [wikimedia.org]

Re:Summary Wrong (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year and a half ago | (#41129427)

GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone

The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gps [wikimedia.org]

Likely, the summary is dumbed down from "the GPS location data (determined by receiving signals from satellites) that is transmitted to the carriers' cell towers." But I, too am tired of that portrayal of GPS; thank you TV shows.

It's quite obvious what's happening here (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41121119)

Governor Brown is not acting in the interests of his constituents (and no, large corporations with an interest in individuals' data are not constituents), hence needs to be removed from office. Immediately.

GPS Emitting Prepaid Phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41128607)

If your phone is emitting GPS signals, you need to get a new phone.

Check for New 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...