GPS Tracking

(Rest easy, your donuts are safe!)

As much as I know my mom would love to be able to track me down at any given moment, I would never want my cell phone to be a gateway for others to view personal information. GPS tracking is absolutely an infringement on the rights of an individual. On a domestic level, police have ways and means of tracking down criminals that frankly, require minimal effort. For instance, license plates, personal records, such as credit card history and prior addresses, and even, if they’re not too busy with donut holes, the world wide web; all of which have been proven to be useful tools in looking up personal information. Police can even zero in on an address via satellite to search for an individual’s vehicle. Granted these all require some work, and it’s not like police are paid for such efforts. Domestically, GPS tracking is a step over the line of personal privacy that should be neither legal or justified. While it may be useful in situations where there is a grave threat or danger, there should be strict guidelines, such as probable cause, before it should even be considered.

The Washington Post article did not at all change my stance. After hearing judges have granted cell phone tracking data requests without probable cause, I was even more skeptical of such investigations. While I see the advantages of such a system in tracking serial killers and other criminal targets and also in emergency situations; from what the article reports, tracking is not being used in a way that is constitutionally acceptable. For instance, the article insists that FBI agents are requesting location data citing lower standards such as "specific and articulable facts showing reasonable grounds to believe the data is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

Perhaps on an international level, GPS tracking would be more appropriate. Especially in terms of terrorists and national security. Because these situations are often more difficult to handle in terms of tracking and ordinarily involve the safety of a mass amount, I could see looking into GPS traking data from cell phone companies. In such incidences, however, probable cause should be necessary before any investigative steps are taken. If the government rules GPS tracking is absolutely necessary in these cases, then there has to be such guidelines (ie. probable cause) in order to prevent abuse.

However, GPS tracking has already become commercialized and it is my belief that its abuse is inevitable. I would not support its use, unless there is a proven emergency situation (perhaps probable terrorist attacks), and I would never want the government to require all cell phones to have it. There could be devastating consequences if this tool were to fall into the wrong hands. Technologically, there are already so many ways to hack into others' personal lives. GPS tracking would just be another way for stalkers, rapists, and other criminals to retrieve information. As GPS tracking becomes more popular, there is no telling how many criminals may be able to use it to their advantage. There are so many other means of tracking intelligence and it is unfortunate that prosecutors and police have lost all interest in true detective work, and would rather look to a last resort before really exploring their options.

Giuliani on Torture

I found this video of a speech by Giuliani to be interesting and relevant to our current talks on torture. While everyone agrees torture should never be justified in America, it was refreshing to hear Giuliani's take on the exaggerations and falsehoods portrayed about torture in the liberal media...


"And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they’re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn’t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States."


Giuliani goes on to describe how he was able to put criminals in jail...
"You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? And I helped to put thousands in Italy in jail? You know how I did it? I did it by electronic surveillance and aggressive questioning. None of them wanted to give me the information. They didn’t walk into my office and say, ‘I want to tell you about all of those Mafia murders…”


And of course terrorists are not going to give up information. However, we should use the above methods described to retrieve information and should never result to torture. Torture has been an issue for centuries and is just now beginning to surface publically. Although it is disturbing, there is still time to change current policy and focus more on effective means of questioning. We should not rely on the tactics of our enemies and stoop to the level of Islamic extremists. We should set the example and show other countries that torture is not acceptable, even in times of war. However, the president should be able to use his/her discretion in making decisions about tougher means of interrogation and the bottom line should be public safety.

"...we should be against torture. But we should not be against aggressive questioning. And the line between the two is going to require some really difficult decisions about drawing it and kind of trusting each other with the discretion for the president to make decisions about what has to be done in the interests of the American people.’’