Email

By Greg Bartlett

GPS tracking devices have long been a source of controversy as far as the government and privacy rights are concerned.  Is it legal for police to use GPS devices without a warrant?  What does the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” mean?  What has the judicial system decided about GPS and privacy?  Is giving up privacy worth the additional security that we can gain as a society?

GPS Tracking & Privacy

These are just a few of the issues that are brought to the surface as technology continues to advance.  To examine the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy”-where does this come in?  People who send postcards can’t reasonably expect the content to remain private.  A postcard is not the medium that people choose when they wish to communicate private information.  What about e-mail?  E-mail can generally be thought of as a postcard-your boss can probably see your e-mails, and anyone who knows enough about computers can probably figure out a way to get into your e-mails.  Not to mention the fact that once you send it, it is out of your control and can be forwarded endlessly.  The old saying comes to mind: “Don’t write (or e-mail) anything that you don’t want read in a court of law.”

So what about GPS tracking devices?  First you need to understand how these devices work.  A system of approximately 24 satellites orbit through outer space and work (usually) in sets of three to determine the latitude and longitude of the person or vehicle wearing the receiver.  The information downloads constantly to the internet or to a mobile device.  Active systems are a minute-by-minute account, while passive systems are more like a historical record of events.  If a police officer attaches a GPS tracking device to your car without your knowledge (and without a warrant) are they violating basic privacy rights?  The court has also decided that if the device is “readily available,” there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy.   So far, Washington and Oregon have decided that warrants must be obtained.

Some judges say that tracking is not a search and therefore does not require a warrant.  Other courts argue that a person can be defined by the information gathered by GPS tracking devices.  On the other hand, society can be much safer if law enforcement can surreptitiously place tracking devices on the vehicles of suspects and catch them before serious injury is inflicted in innocent victims.  The courts are likely to remain divided for some time on the issue, and we as citizens should carefully consider both the benefits and costs of privacy issues involved in technological advances.