| [Ben]: | For thee, not for me | Discuss This [2 comments so far] View Comments | Recently, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals decided that sneaking into your driveway, putting a GPS tracker on your vehicle and using it to track your car for extended period of time without a warrant is not an invasion of privacy. Their reasoning? Most folks don't put up gates across their driveway, so anyone can just walk up the driveway, thus there must be no expectation of privacy.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski brought up the point that the justices could feel comfortable making that decision because they almost certainly could afford gates and fences to protect their own driveway.
So here is my idea. At some point these justices park in public places ... going to the gym, the grocery store, to their kids' baseball games, wherever. In short, places with even less expectation of privacy than your own driveway. Wouldn't it be fun if someone put a GPS tracking device on their vehicles when they were in a public place (thus with no expectation of privacy), left it on for a few weeks, retrieved it and then published the judge's driving habits?
I bet their opinions would change quickly when they realized their ruling could apply to them as well. |
| 2010-08-26
Permanent Link:
For thee, not for me |
