GEOLOCATIONAL PRIVACY AND
SURVEILLANCE (GPS) ACT
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
We know that law enforcement uses it
and we will hear about that today. But the technology is also used or
canbe used by commercial entities and really just about anyone that
wants to spy on your whereabouts.
This bill defines what geolocation information is and establishes
uniform legal authorities for obtaining this information. In short,
this bill does what the Supreme Court invited, or challenged, the
legislative branch to do when they decided the Jones case earlier this
year. In that decision, Justice Alito stated ``A legislative body is
well situated to gauge changing public attitudes,to draw detailed
lines, and to balance privacy and public safety ina comprehensive
way.''
H.R.2168 properly balances the appropriate use of the information
obtained from the technology and the privacy rights of those enjoying
the convenience and other benefits that the technology confers to us in
our everyday lives.
No onedoubts that this information is useful, especially to law
enforcementofficers and agents. The big question is how do we balance
the needs of the police with the expectations of privacy of those that
they protect? This bill tries to strike the appropriate balance and
give the police the tools they need and our citizens the privacy that
they expect.
It isno secret that court ordered electronic surveillance has long
been a valuable tool for effective law enforcement. At least in terms
of ``content'' interception, it is a technique that is typically used
as a last resort, when other investigative techniques have failed or
would be likely to fail or would even be too dangerous to try.
By incorporating a judicial process that must be followed to seek a
court order authorizing this type of surveillance, we are assured
that,
like in the case of theinterception of a communications ``content,''
that this technique is not abused.
There would likely be internal layers of review before a judicial
application was even made. Facts would have to be established and
proved, and ultimately a judge would be the one who decides,based on
all of the information presented, if such a technique is warranted.
The role of Congress is to protect and defend
the United States Constitution and personal liberties provided
to American citizens under the Fourth Amendment. Put simply,
the government and law enforcement should not be able to track
somebody indefinitely without their knowledge or consent or
without obtaining a probable cause warrant from a judge. Just
because it can be done doesn't mean it necessarily should be
done.
Supreme Court case on the issue, the
court ruled unanimously that physically attaching a GPS device
to a vehicle constituted the search under the Fourth Amendment.
Most law enforcement agencies have responded by requiring their
officers to obtain probable cause warrants before placing GPS
devices on vehicles and or "chipped" dog or like.
including
that obtained from other devices or methods such as smartphones
or, for instance, the OnStar System.
challenges to our privacy rights because of the types of
information that is generated about us, how it is stored and by
whomit can be accessed.
The Supreme Court's 1967 decision, Katz v. The United
States continues to direct our privacy jurisprudence. In that
case, a man calls from a pay phone booth, were recorded by
device attached to the outside of the booth by the FBI. The
court ruledthat this eavesdropping was a search under the
Fourth Amendment because it violated a man's reasonable
expectation of privacy. Federal law and supreme court rulings require the
issuance of a warrant as in the casewith government-owned
locational devices and Title III intercepts. The difference in
this situation is that the government does not own nor are they
attaching the locational device to a person.
Currently with a court order, law enforcement may request
the possible location of a cellular device from a communication
company via their cell tower or cell site information, which
enables law enforcement to potentially infer a general area
where a particular call originated, not necessarily a precise
location. Cell site information only gives an approximate location
versus a precise or exact location like GPS devices.
Cell phones are not government-ownedlocational beacons, the
government did not attach the GPS device to someone's personal
cell phone unlike government-owned GPS devices again warrent required
per "Bounty" of The 14th Amendment of The Bill of Rights of The United
States Constitution.
Government Printing Office [Incident: 121109-000056] Link removal Acts
in Espionage CIMS00003496566 - FCC
--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://cmt1.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/guyperea
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>
Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://plus.google.com/100487463984952448443
https://twitter.com/presidentus1
No comments:
Post a Comment