tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505239263683630603.post1354104781724350777..comments2024-01-01T05:22:02.392-08:00Comments on MalwareJake: Cost of surveillance and the 4th amendmentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11982692586016206766noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505239263683630603.post-85103407464379016132014-01-12T21:20:38.372-08:002014-01-12T21:20:38.372-08:00Craig, you have an excellent point about the GPS s...Craig, you have an excellent point about the GPS surveillance actually tracking the right target. I expect that we will have the same challenges as law enforcement moves to endpoint exploitation for tracking targets. I know of no cases where this is currently happening, but it only makes sense as a logical step.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982692586016206766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505239263683630603.post-19208313696867202082014-01-12T13:51:42.102-08:002014-01-12T13:51:42.102-08:00Not only do you have to define what constitutes a ...Not only do you have to define what constitutes a search, but what is an "unreasonable search" as defined in the Constitution. When an officer pulls a car over for a traffic violation and smells marijuana, he or she has the right perform a search of the vehicle. What if the officer pulls someone over that he or she has arrested on previous drug charges. Absent the indication of drugs (smell or sight), the officer cannot search the vehicle without permission.<br /><br />Another thing that caught my attention, although I admit I didn't read the Court's full opinions, was that nothing was said about verifying the intended target was the one actually driving the vehicle. If you only have GPS evidence without documented visuals, how could that be admissible in court? I guess those who have passed the bar will have that burden.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00099694721186943244noreply@blogger.com