• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it legal to use a GPS tracking device on a person without their knowledge?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,992
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I came across a Youtube video where a guy introduces a small GPS tracking device and suggest that viewers may put it in the bottom of their girlfriend's purse to track her and find out if she's cheating.

I assume that this is against that law, but IANAL, so I'd like to find out more.

Here's the video:
 
Since GPS is a fairly new technology, I seriously doubt any laws have been passed specifically regarding it. As to existing laws, it's legal to follow someone or hire a PI to do so. Since this seems to be just a lazy/cheap way of obtaining legally available information, I doubt that it's illegal.

Extremely creepy and grounds for dumping the a-hole, but not illegal.
 
Kev The Green said:
Since GPS is a fairly new technology, I seriously doubt any laws have been passed specifically regarding it. As to existing laws, it's legal to follow someone or hire a PI to do so. Since this seems to be just a lazy/cheap way of obtaining legally available information, I doubt that it's illegal.

Extremely creepy and grounds for dumping the a-hole, but not illegal.
Click to expand...
Stalking laws might apply...
 
I read the thread title and assumed it would be about this:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breaki...81/Apple-devices-logging-movementsresearchers

Apple devices logging movements

WASHINGTON—A pair of British security researchers said Wednesday that the latest version of Apple's operating system for the iPhone and the iPad is constantly recording the location of the devices and storing the information in a hidden file.

Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden said the position-logging feature is contained in iOS 4, the operating system for the Apple devices which was released in June of last year.

In another thread some people were upset that Bank of America talked to some contractors who proposed some shady and invasive practices, yet here Apple is actually doing it.
 
Well, in the case of Apple, the users sign a contract agreeing to it, and they are informed in the contract. Most people don't read the contract, but that is arguably on them.

In this case, the person being tracked would not have been informed or given permission.
 
We recently reviewed a case where the FBI planted a GPS device on a suspect's car without a warrant.
Their suspicion was that the individual was managing a large marijuana farm. In order to prove the case, the suspect has to be shown as actually "tending" the plants; weeding, applyiing fertilizer, etc.
Merely stopping by to pick a little weed to smoke isn't enough.
The FBI thought they could show, by a series of regular visits to the farm along with other evidence, sufficient cause to make an arrest for the felony charge of "manufacturing with intent to distribute".
Alas for the feds, the courts said otherwise.
However, I don't believe they ruled that the actual tracking was illegal....
 
In the words of Sun Microsystems Scott Mc Nearly in 1999, you have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.
 
lionking said:
In the words of Sun Microsystems Scott Mc Nearly in 1999, you have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.
Click to expand...

I would change that to "you have zero privacy anyway, without effort. Get over it."

You can evry well have privacy, or make it extremely hard to track you.

It is only msot of the time it is not worth the effort.
 
rwguinn said:
Stalking laws might apply...
Click to expand...
Obviously it would depend on the jurisdiction, but I doubt simply putting a GPS in your girlfriend's purse would be sufficient cause to justify a stalking charge. If she wasn't actually your girlfriend that would likely be a different story.
 
Kev The Green said:
Obviously it would depend on the jurisdiction, but I doubt simply putting a GPS in your girlfriend's purse would be sufficient cause to justify a stalking charge. If she wasn't actually your girlfriend that would likely be a different story.
Click to expand...

Agreed ... it could be argued the tracking device was for her benefit, for safety reasons.

Isn't their a 'momy app" for that for the iPhone", the theory being mom can pull a map up on her computer and see where all the kids are at any given time.
 
Aren't there GPS devices specifically made to be placed in your kid's car? If they are 17 then, I imagine it is entirely legal- perhaps even smart.

I wonder what happens when your "child" turns 18. Does it turn into a crime?
 
Bikewer said:
We recently reviewed a case where the FBI planted a GPS device on a suspect's car without a warrant.
Their suspicion was that the individual was managing a large marijuana farm. In order to prove the case, the suspect has to be shown as actually "tending" the plants; weeding, applyiing fertilizer, etc.
Merely stopping by to pick a little weed to smoke isn't enough.
The FBI thought they could show, by a series of regular visits to the farm along with other evidence, sufficient cause to make an arrest for the felony charge of "manufacturing with intent to distribute".
Alas for the feds, the courts said otherwise.
However, I don't believe they ruled that the actual tracking was illegal....
Click to expand...

The issue in the original question is to whether a suspicious lover can plant one of these things in a straying partner's handbag. Obviously this is going to be different depending on local and national law wherever you might be. I was able to find a forum post made by a buy who was frustrated about being charged with stalking for doing this.

On the issue of whether the police can just put on on you, or your car, and track where you go, that would of course depend on national law, which is going to be different everywhere. The issue is being considered by the US Supreme Court, so we should have more of an idea what is needed here in the next few months. Either the police will need to get a warrant, or they won't (and even if the Supreme Court finds that the police don't need a warrant, state courts could still find that non-federal police need to get warrants because of more stringent privacy provisions in state constitutions).
 
If you do decide to do it, then don't install the tracking device at her house. She may have hidden security cameras to monitor your activities when she is not in the room. Also, it is probably easier to give her a purse with the device concealed inside it - that seems less intrusive than attaching something to her private property. If you are going to use this device, I recommend printing out a little sticker that says "property of FBI," it always helps to have some plausible deniability.

On a more serious note, I'd love to find some guy who thinks this is appropriate and ask him what his response would be if the girlfriend hid one on his personal property.
 
Puppycow said:
I came across a Youtube video where a guy introduces a small GPS tracking device and suggest that viewers may put it in the bottom of their girlfriend's purse to track her and find out if she's cheating.

I assume that this is against that law, but IANAL, so I'd like to find out more.

Here's the video:
Click to expand...

Kev The Green said:
Since GPS is a fairly new technology, I seriously doubt any laws have been passed specifically regarding it. As to existing laws, it's legal to follow someone or hire a PI to do so. Since this seems to be just a lazy/cheap way of obtaining legally available information, I doubt that it's illegal.

Extremely creepy and grounds for dumping the a-hole, but not illegal.
Click to expand...

Bikewer said:
We recently reviewed a case where the FBI planted a GPS device on a suspect's car without a warrant.
Their suspicion was that the individual was managing a large marijuana farm. In order to prove the case, the suspect has to be shown as actually "tending" the plants; weeding, applyiing fertilizer, etc.
Merely stopping by to pick a little weed to smoke isn't enough.
The FBI thought they could show, by a series of regular visits to the farm along with other evidence, sufficient cause to make an arrest for the felony charge of "manufacturing with intent to distribute".
Alas for the feds, the courts said otherwise.
However, I don't believe they ruled that the actual tracking was illegal....
Click to expand...


I think Kev has got a comment closest to where we are right now, but "specifically" isn't quite the same as "not covered.

The courts are still playing with the problem, and they're not all on the same team yet.

This is a good recent overview, mainly directed at the issue of LE surreptitiously tracking autos without a warrant using GPS devices, but the principles are similar.

Here's an excerpt. The rest of the article is worth a peek.

Two very recent decisions by the Court of Appeals of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia with regard to the use of Global Positioning System ("GPS") tracking devices as surveillance tools by police have once again focused attention on the important issues that are presented in such cases and have highlighted the split of authority with regard to these issues. In Foltz v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 2010), reh'g en banc granted, No. 0521‑09‑4, 2010 WL 3743911 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2010), the court held that the warrantless and surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device by police officers on the bumper of the defendant's automobile was not an unconstitutional search or seizure and that the warrantless, week-long use of the device to track the movements of the automobile was itself not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The opposite result was reached in United States v. Maynard, Nos. 08‑3030, 08‑3034, 2010 WL 3063788 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010), which placed greater emphasis on privacy concerns to find that the warrantless use of a GPS device was an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...


The states are going to clash a bit on this as well, as is the case with recording phone conversations.

From the same article.

It should be noted that in addition to these cases, a number of state legislatures have enacted statutes that specifically prohibit the use of electronic tracking devices without a warrant. These statutes most certainly bring GPS devices within their scope. For example, California has made it unlawful for anyone but a law enforcement agency to "use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person," has specifically declared that "electronic tracking of a person's location without that person's knowledge violates that person's reasonable expectation of privacy," and necessarily thereby requires a warrant for police use of a GPS
Click to expand...


This would certainly exclude a GPS device in a purse.

Interstate activity would probably lead to the same sort of fun and games that the phone recording consent laws have.

The article's conclusion.

Given the split of authority throughout the country on the validity of warrantless GPS monitoring, the conflict over the use of GPS devices may ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps in an appeal from Foltz or Maynard. Until the Court definitively addresses the new technology, defense attorneys may certainly argue that any warrantless use of GPS tracking is unconstitutional and requires the suppression of any evidence obtained as a result.
Click to expand...

In other words.

It depends ...

... and ...

We don't really know yet.
 
Kids yes. Grandma/pa with dementia yes. Other responsible rational adults? Probably not. I think it would come down to the degree of responsibility you have for the person vs their own.
 
Yeggster said:
Not a very far leap ... I hope you didn't confuse my presentation of a possible legal argument with condoning the act?
Click to expand...

I would love to see the legal case for stalking your* partner "for their own safety".



*generic you
 
Mycroft said:
I read the thread title and assumed it would be about this:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breaki...81/Apple-devices-logging-movementsresearchers

Apple devices logging movements

WASHINGTON—A pair of British security researchers said Wednesday that the latest version of Apple's operating system for the iPhone and the iPad is constantly recording the location of the devices and storing the information in a hidden file.

Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden said the position-logging feature is contained in iOS 4, the operating system for the Apple devices which was released in June of last year.

In another thread some people were upset that Bank of America talked to some contractors who proposed some shady and invasive practices, yet here Apple is actually doing it.
Click to expand...

I've been sent copies of news reports about the Apple Location Services logging, and haven't been able to pin down what, exactly, is unethical about it.

I'm not saying it's ethical or not - because I'm not sure what the claim is, exactly.

It sounds like there's a logfile for Location Services. That makes perfect sense, because other apps can be authorized by the user to use the current location to perform their functions. eg: Google Maps, Nike+, Find My iPhone. It's not any sort of secret that I can tell - it's at least documented in the SDK complete with API calls.

In terms of secrecy to the user: Location Services is an iOS functionality that is disabled by default and users need to turn it on. I'm trying to imagine a user saying that Nike+ was approved to use Location Services to find his location, but that he's shocked to discover this information was in a file on the device.

This is true of all the device platforms of which I'm aware (Android, iOS, Blackberry) - they have a version of Location Services that users can authorize to be accessed by installed apps or even online services (like all those "find my phone" services).

So, I'm still trying to make sense of the repeated accusations that Apple is engaged in 'shady and invasive' practices.

I'm not defending Apple, but I don't understand what's being pointed to here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom