Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

The census must enumerate everyone in the united states. It has one day to do this--1 Apr 2010. Accurate GPS information helps census workers beat the deadline.

Given that the purpose of the sample is to enumerate, not just sample, it has the potential to be the most accurate demographic dataset available in the United States-- the reference standard. Many organizations-- commercial, nonprofit, and governmental rely on information derived and abstracted from the census. If we went back  to a 1790 style census, it would be disastrous.

We couldn't even argue tax policy without being bogged down in arguments over which polls and surveys were "biased".

You do know that the vast vast majority of Census forms are mailed both ways. Only a small percentage requires follow up because of lack of compliance.
The ACS is done year around now, basically it's a poll.

Do you think the GPS data is going to be used to round up Americans and put them in camps?

No, I think some typical civil service guy out to make a name came up with another way for them to piss money down the drain.

It all depends on the database the GPS actually uses. Most road GIS data out there today classifies all roads, so its not a problem to route depending on road type. Not all GPS units utilize such data. That does not mean that all GPS units, including those used by emergency responders are that way.

For all I know, the emergency responders use a GIS database that is updated on a monthly basis, like aeronautical nav data.

resedit wrote:

No - his GPS has it's maps updated as needed.

What you don't seem to get is that GPS maps themselves still do not have accurate information for many areas.

There's a reason they tell you to still consult a real map.

I'm not sure if you understand that the absence of GPS data isn't what stops the US government from rounding up citizens and putting them in camps.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

It all depends on the database the GPS actually uses. Most road GIS data out there today classifies all roads, so its not a problem to route depending on road type.

It depends upon the quality of data.
Major cities (such as the Uni cities you probably spend most of your time in),

How horribly elitist of you.

Yes.

OK.
It's just my experience that grad students spend a lot of time at uni cities.

resedit wrote:

OK.
It's just my experience that grad students spend a lot of time at uni cities.

And it's your experience that these are "major cities"?

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

OK.
It's just my experience that grad students spend a lot of time at uni cities.

And it's your experience that these are "major cities"?

Universities typically are located at fairly urban locations.
At least decent sized universities. Where there are students with loans, businesses flourish.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

OK.
It's just my experience that grad students spend a lot of time at uni cities.

And it's your experience that these are "major cities"?

Universities typically are located at fairly urban locations.
At least decent sized universities. Where there are students with loans, businesses flourish.

A huge number of colleges are in towns of 10,000 people or less.

KHannon wrote:

KHannon wrote:

resedit wrote:

We don't need to get the supreme court to agree.
We need Congress to pass a privacy law saying they can't do it without a warrant.

And under what enumerated power do you believe Congress has the power to dictate to the states that this would require a warrant?

Edit: to clarify since you might not be aware: the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers.  If the Constitution doesn't let Congress do something, they can't do it.

You appear to have overlooked this, so I'll answer it.  Congress would more likely than not NOT have the power to dictate to the state that they must require a warrant in these circumstances.  Congress can pass privacy laws re: commercial transactions under the commerce power.  The commerce power is not implicated in criminal warrants (especially under the current Court's reading of the commerce power)

The closest power would be the Section 5 of the 14th Amendment power which gives Congress teh power to enforce the operative provision of the 14th amendment.  However, the SUpreme Court has limited Congress' power under this provision to those acts that are "congruent and proportional" to an actual constitutional violation as determined by the Supreme Court.  Since, as I have already indicated, the use of GPS in the indicated circumstance would not constitute a constitutional violation, Congress could not under section 5 require a warrant.

Thus, your statement that Congress could do it was incorrect.  As I stated, the Supreme Court would need to modify its 4th Amendment jurisprudence.

I'm still waiting to hear how Res intends to overthrow the federalist structure of our country...

resedit wrote:

So perhaps it is a state issue and not a federal issue.
You know, there are plenty of things federal government does that the constitution doesn't give them power to do. There's nothing in the constitution that says the feds can require people have health insurance, but that's what they are trying to do right now.

Passing a GPS privacy law may actually fall under FCC since GPS uses radio signal, and the FCC as far as I know is not unconstitutional.

No.  There are not "plenty of things" the federal government does that the Constitution doesn't say they can.  Find me a single instance where Congress has taken an action, the Supreme Court said "that is unconstitutional" and Congress did it anyways.  One instance.

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly (the breadth of which has allowed the creation of organizations such as the FCC).  Requiring people to purchase health insurance will likely be upheld under the Commerce Clause (and trust me, someone will challenge it).

resedit wrote:

The supreme courts has not said it is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law restricting the use of GPS satellites (or data collected from someones phone) to track people without warrant.

All the courts have found is that it is not unconstitutional for police departments to do this.

There are plenty of things that are illegal that are not unconstitutional.
It's not unconstitutional for me to drive. It is illegal for me to drive.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed this question.  So, theoretically, Congress could pass the law requiring probable cause.  It would be challenged, and my opinion based on extensive training in this field, would be that the current Supreme Court would strike it down on federalism grounds.

And of course police departments can use GPS data currently without a warrant.  Duh.  Look back a page, I explained why this is the case.  The question we are discussing is whether Congress could alter the landscape to require the states to have probable cause before using this data.

And why bring up the distinction between illegality and unconstitutionality?  That is irrelevant to this discussion.  If Congress passed a law requiring states to have probable cause before obtaining GPS data, it would be illegal for states to not follow it until and unless the Supreme Court found the statute unconstitutional, at which point the Congressional statute would be void.

resedit wrote:

Right - so congress passes the law.
It goes to the court. Eventually the highest court.
If the supreme court strikes it down, then congress can attempt to amend the constitution.

I don't want the .gov to be able to track me by going to my cell phone company. If I go missing I do, but otherwise, they really should have a warrant having demonstrated probable cause.

I TOTALLY agree with you that they should not have that power.  My point in engaging you on this issue is that I believe the current Supreme Court would undermine any attempt by Congress to require probable cause.