Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Your stuff is our stuff

Your stuff is our stuff
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:21 PM
 
A California student found a GPS tracker on his car. It had been placed there by the FBI - it's not clear if they got a warrant first. A couple days later, six FBI agents show up to take it back and ask a bunch of questions. No arrest, no warrant shown.

story link
Wired link with picture of the tracker.

Afifi got into his car and headed for the parking lot exit when two SUVs pulled up with flashing lights carrying four police officers in bullet-proof vests.

The agent who initially spoke with Afifi identified himself then as Vincent and told Afifi, "We're here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It's federal property. It's an expensive piece, and we need it right now."

Afifi asked, "Are you the guys that put it there?" and the agent replied, "Yeah, I put it there." He told Afifi, "We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."
If he's guilty, they should have arrested and charged. Until then, he is presumed innocent and he need not cooperate at all. Hence why they brought all the muscle.

My thoughts: if they plant something on your property, it's like mailing something to you. The item becomes your property. So they showed up with an intimidation routine, in order to steal an expensive GPS tracker from him.

Bonus points from later in the article: They congratulated him on his new job, and mentioned the restaurant he and his girlfriend go to.
( Last edited by reader50; Oct 8, 2010 at 03:07 PM. Reason: added better link)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:22 PM
 
Yeah, its all a little shady.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:46 PM
 
"The device was an older model of tracking equipment that had long ago been replaced by devices that don't require batteries."

If it was so old, how valuable was it that they wanted it back? What if he'd already sold it on Craigslist as planned?
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
Christ, look at the pictures of the device! You'd think the FBI would have something that is a little smaller. The guy should have put an Apple sticker on it sold it to Gizmodo.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:53 PM
 
Beyond the civil liberties/illegal search and seizure issues at play here ... what's really messed up is if he had gotten rid of it the government would have probably tried to charge him for the device.

OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 View Post
Christ, look at the pictures of the device! You'd think the FBI would have something that is a little smaller. The guy should have put an Apple sticker on it sold it to Gizmodo.
I can understand why the battery pack would need to be relatively huge, but, yeah. I don't know how they plant that and not expect a mechanic to find it.

Originally Posted by the article
"It has to be able to be removed but also stay in place and not be seen," [a former agent] said. "There's always the possibility that the car will end up at a body shop or auto mechanic, so it has to be hidden well. It's very rare when the guys find them."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 02:57 PM
 
Looks like they cut the bulb end off of a maglite to use as a battery pack.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
A California student found a GPS tracker on his car. It had been placed there by the FBI - it's not clear if they got a warrant first.
Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to place a GPS tracker on a car.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 03:19 PM
 
which is a pity.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 03:38 PM
 
I think that power will have to be restrained by Congress eventually. The potential for law enforcement to harm innocent citizens with it is just too great.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 03:51 PM
 
Do they need a warrant for eyeball surveillance?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:05 PM
 
If you look at histories of the early FBI, it's fun to read about how hilariously incompetent they were.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I think that power will have to be restrained by Congress eventually. The potential for law enforcement to harm innocent citizens with it is just too great.
Good luck with that. While they are at it they can do something about civil forfeiture too.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:13 PM
 
No warrant is needed for eyeball surveillance of an individual (or his car) in "public places." Which means "on the street, in public parking areas," and so on. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you're out on the street in your car. At least no expectation that your car's location would be private. There IS a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's garage, which could be sticky for the feds if the student parked in a private garage.

Now here's the thing: why would the FBI bother to track the location of some arbitrary college student with (albeit antiquated) high tech hardware if they had nothing on him? Why did they bother expending the man-hours and use of the hardware? Isn't there something really more useful for these agents to be doing, like keeping an eye on bank robbers or potential terrorists? The potential for abuse is high, as is the potential for waste of public resources (time, hardware, monitoring, etc.). I want the funds that come from my taxes to go to worthwhile things, not "oops, not that John Smith, the other one" goof ups.

Oh wait...the studant has an "Arabic sounding name!!!!!!!11111!!!one!!" In California. How unique. That would be like someone with an Arabic sounding name in Dearborn, MI. I think this is the real issue-a natural-born US citizen being tracked by the FBI because of his name. SHAME ON THE FBI if this is the real case.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Do they need a warrant for eyeball surveillance?
No, but eyeball surveillance doesn't require attaching a device to someone's property. I think an argument can be made that these types of searches (eyeball vs. attached device) meet different standards WRT what constitutes an unreasonable search.

I don't think you can make the same argument about publicly placed cameras, which has been bugging me for more than 15 years now.

Also, IIRC you still need to throw the gps monitor past a judge, it just has a less stringent set of criteria than a search warrant. I'm not sure that's enough for me personally, but I feel it's relevant to the topic.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:23 PM
 
I would have asked for proof on ownership before handing it over. Maybe it belongs to a state or local cop. And make them sign a receipt.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
No warrant is needed for eyeball surveillance of an individual (or his car) in "public places." Which means "on the street, in public parking areas," and so on. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you're out on the street in your car. At least no expectation that your car's location would be private. There IS a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's garage, which could be sticky for the feds if the student parked in a private garage.
There was a recent case where some township was using google's satellite imagery to find pools in people's back yards, and bust them if they hadn't payed the local licensing fee.

This was judged to be not okay based on a similar argument to the one above, namely that you have an expectation of privacy on your property.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I would have asked for proof on ownership before handing it over. Maybe it belongs to a state or local cop. And make them sign a receipt.
I would have said "You want it? Try to come and take it coppers. Oink. Oink. Oink."

Not really, but it still felt good to type.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:48 PM
 
"I'm sorry, you'll have to go on Ebay and bid like everyone else."
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:50 PM
 
I suspect they would have just raided his house and confiscated most of his electronics if he refused to hand it over. The Obama administration has done nothing to reign in the FBI's jackboots.

Reminds me of when NASA scattered Columbia over all those farmers land and then demanded the pieces back.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
"I'm sorry, you'll have to go on Ebay and bid like everyone else. Oink."
Not fixed, corrected, or amended... just embellished.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:01 PM
 
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No, but eyeball surveillance doesn't require attaching a device to someone's property.
Probably so, but from a tinfoil hat perspective, the information about us that they can collect without a warrant would be equivalent (our comings and goings). Right? As for the private garage, it doesn't make any real world difference where inside the garage we are (aside from the fact that I don't think GPS even works indoors, does it?)
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:27 PM
 
Starting out with a reasonable expectation of privacy in private quarters may sound a little sketchy when applied simply to a garage, but it's still a private location. And GPS has a lot of trouble within some structures-my roof decking is lined with aluminum foil for heat management, and I don't get ANY satellite signals through it. But my garage door is solid metal, so it would also block the tracking signals generated by the tracking device.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Probably so, but from a tinfoil hat perspective, the information about us that they can collect without a warrant would be equivalent (our comings and goings). Right?
Yes. The only differences I can think of are the amount of manpower needed and the diminished likelihood of the target realizing they have a "tail".
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:38 PM
 
It's not so much the knowing where I go, yes, anyone with eyes can see that. Heck, my fastlane transponder could tell tales. It's also not illegal for a private detective to follow you around. It's the invasion of putting a device in my car, my property, my personal space.

All jokes aside, I'd have been worried it was a bomb and called the police.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:42 PM
 
I don't see this ever getting overturned then, since the bottom line is that our actual privacy hasn't been reduced at all. The difference is only in implementation cost/labor, like the addition of traffic cameras.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It's the invasion of putting a device in my car, my property, my personal space.
Yeah but that's not a concrete reason, and the fact is it's not a bomb, and it doesn't harm you in any direct way. If it was one of the ones that drains your battery, that might be something. And if you couldn't remove it, that might be something. But the way it is in this case, there's really no reasonable case to be made that it victimized the, uh, suspect in any way. Sure, it's creepy, but so are peeping tom agents. And people are allowed to attach things loosely to your car (ads, tickets, notes, "wash me" patterns, etc).
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:51 PM
 
That device reminds me of I-Spy when Owen Wilson gets all the old crappy equipment.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Starting out with a reasonable expectation of privacy in private quarters may sound a little sketchy when applied simply to a garage, but it's still a private location. And GPS has a lot of trouble within some structures-my roof decking is lined with aluminum foil for heat management, and I don't get ANY satellite signals through it. But my garage door is solid metal, so it would also block the tracking signals generated by the tracking device.
That's why I brought up the pool example. At least in that particular case, it was found that using a satellite to go around someone's fence was over the line.

IOW, at least WRT this precedent, you can be in places where the transmitter signals can be received, but it wouldn't be legal to receive them since the target is no longer in public.

This is assuming the legal argument being made to justify the transmitter is that it's mimicking what could be done the old-fashioned way. This is a such a legal tangle though I'll fully admit I'm out over my skis on this one.

People argue whether the Founding Fathers envisioned the kind of weaponry we have available now, I think that's debatable. I'm pretty sure they had absolutely no clue that these kinds of privacy issues would come up. Same with cameras.

There just isn't a framework to deal with this, and because of it, the law enforcement/privacy balance is getting out of whack, and will only become more so.
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Isn't there something really more useful for these agents to be doing, like keeping an eye on bank robbers or potential terrorists?
His name probably came up as a low level target based on a correlation analysis of suspected individuals involved in terrorist activities. In other words, Afifi's brother-in-law's sister's cousin used to know a guy that catered food to the annual terrorist convention. Something ridicules like that. Then Joe FBI decided to cover his ass and break out the 90s tracking equipment from the storage closet to monitor his activities. However, the surveillance wasn't that high of a priority and the agents in charge didn't notice the oil change incident until after the fact. That's my guess.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Bonus points from later in the article: They congratulated him on his new job, and mentioned the restaurant he and his girlfriend go to.
That's the icing on the cake... Way to add insult to injury.

Also the FBI really, really needs to redesign their tracking devices. That thing looks way too IED-ish.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2010, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 View Post
His name probably came up as a low level target based on a correlation analysis of suspected individuals involved in terrorist activities. In other words, Afifi's brother-in-law's sister's cousin used to know a guy.... That's my guess.
from the article:
Afifi's father, Aladdin Afifi, was a U.S. citizen and former president of the Muslim Community Association here, before his family moved to Egypt in 2003. Yasir Afifi returned to the U.S. alone in 2008, while his father and brothers stayed in Egypt, to further his education he said. He knows he's on a federal watchlist
Afifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially.
Sending money to the middle east regularly is going to send up some flags. If that money comes from a twenty year old college student who can afford to travel abroad regularly, support his siblings, and live well here then you probably will be on a watch list. Add to that long lasting ties to some randomly named Muslim organization with membership we know nothing about. So why is anyone is surprised the feds are keeping tabs on him?

I have known several people who were at the top of their class in excellent universities and others whose family bled money with the means and connections. None of them were involved in jobs or internships that had them jetting around the world their sophomore year.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Oct 8, 2010 at 08:57 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 09:40 AM
 
He should have put it in a plastic bag. With about 10lbs of dog turd.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah but that's not a concrete reason, and the fact is it's not a bomb, and it doesn't harm you in any direct way.
Other than the fact that it's increased your vehicle weight, and thus decreased MPG?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 11:35 AM
 
But you drive stick, and get great gas mileage anyhow.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
But you drive stick, and get great gas mileage anyhow.


Doof drives auto, and gets 10 mpg.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 01:32 PM
 
(just go with it)
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 01:55 PM
 
I do, however, have to question the resale value of a vehicle which has had its underside tarnished by an FBI device. Anyone who knows anything about cars and hangs around on enthusiast forums will know that the disturbance in the magnetic field will alter the way the dirt sticks to the vehicle, thus altering the aerodynamic properties of the underfloor area... ...making it slower, and thus worth less.
Like that?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 01:58 PM
 
It's good that more people are starting to realize how crappy the FBI is. It's America's secret police. I'm sure there are many decent FBI agents, but the kind of power they wield gets easily abused, and it has led to innocent Americans suffering great injustices and even going to early graves, deprived of their Constitutional rights. It's yet another reason why the federal government needs to be overhauled, cut weigh down and restrained back to sane Constitutional levels.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I think that power will have to be restrained by Congress eventually. The potential for law enforcement to harm innocent citizens with it is just too great.
Very true. Unfortunately, it's rather tricky to get rights back once you've given them away.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 11:49 PM
 
Hence the right to bare arms.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Very true. Unfortunately, it's rather tricky to get rights back once you've given them away.
Interesting choice of words.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2010, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Hence the right to bare arms.
against a us government using the threat of terrorism to erode away citizen rights, that particular right is pretty much useless.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2010, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Interesting choice of words.
it was a considered choice of words. Americans have been letting, sometimes encouraging, the government to invade more and more of their privacy for the last 9 years in the name of fighting terrorism.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2010, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 View Post
Christ, look at the pictures of the device! You'd think the FBI would have something that is a little smaller. The guy should have put an Apple sticker on it sold it to Gizmodo.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,