W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Court Orders Gov't To Disclose GPS Tracking Data

From: Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:55:26 +0100
Message-Id: <E25D9998-7D9A-4DC0-B8EE-AF3DC6307D58@smartspecies.com>
To: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>

There may be no explicit expectation to privacy in public but there  
seems to be overlap here.  Isn't privacy in public expected to protect  
freedom and liberty?

If someone is being tracked across the public sphere does this not  
limit ones freedom ?  I would hope that to give the rights to one  
person, to limit the freedoms of another individual,  there would be a  
clear line of authority and oversight.

It seems like privacy arguments are missing the point here.  In Europe  
there is the management of consent, without consent people need to  
have a notice or sign that you are being tracked.  In the case of law  
enforcement tracking, oversight (via regulator) is required.   The US  
seems to be missing this oversight.   It would seem an abuse of power  
would easily entrap vulnerable people.

That being said, I recently noticed a chilling report from the UK  
describing; .

How covert cameras
detecting hot flushes will reveal who is lying at airport security

In this case it seems that excessive intrusion upon people in public  
is becoming a trend.

I think Chuck Norris would agree :-)

- Mark

Chuck Norris on Terrorism & DHS Surveillance: The feds have lost their  

On 8 Sep 2011, at 17:57, Richard Barnes wrote:

> IANAL(IJLW1)*, but I believe that current case law in the US says that
> law enforcement may attach a tracking device to a target's vehicle and
> collect coordinates without having a court order.  As I understand it
> the logic is much the same as what you're saying: When the person is
> out driving their car, they do not have an expectation of privacy.  In
> order for data collection to technically be a "search" (and thus
> require a warrant), there must be some expectation of privacy in the
> data being collected.
> <http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/june07/recentcases/united_states_v_garcia.pdf 
> >
> This logic has been applied in some other technical domains with the
> opposite decision, e.g., infrared imaging of houses:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States>
> It seems like a distinction arises here between an expectation of
> privacy in a single observation (or a few observations) and an
> expectation of privacy from sustained collection.  Someone can watch
> me walk down the street, but if they follow me for days, things like
> stalker laws start to apply.  I'm not sure whether this line of
> argument has come up in legal circles, but it seems to at least be
> sort of on the horizon with respect to infrared imaging:
> <http://volokh.com/2011/04/11/city-wide-infrared-imaging-project-to-show-heat-loss-of-homes/ 
> >
> --Richard
> * I Am Not A Lawyer (I Just Live With One)
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
>> Le 8 sept. 2011 à 16:38, David Singer a écrit :
>>> A.  We can place gps devices on people's cars and track them  
>>> without a warrant because their cars are in public places and they  
>>> have no expectation of privacy.
>>> B.  We cannot release the records because that would violate their  
>>> privacy.
>> I wonder what is the law in different countries for stalking. You  
>> could follow someone, write down all venues this person is going  
>> to, even track yourself following the person.
>> Is the issue about tracking (collecting the data) or sharing them?
>> --
>> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
>> Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 17:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:53 UTC