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

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

From: Bill Bushey <wbushey@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:54:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPKiuk=X6PCjqoBbhtN10KYXqDTTFFkq4RApRQwZ6_JjLBxBcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Longtime reader, first time poster here.

Without an extensive knowledge of property law, I'm left wondering: is
attaching a tracking device to a car an infringement of the owner's property
right? Wouldn't that be considered appropriation/modification/use of a piece
of property without the owner's permission?

-Bill Bushey

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>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 Friday, 9 September 2011 12:31:31 UTC

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