GPS Monitoring on Cars?

Man Finds GPS Device on His Car; FBI Demands it Back (Arron's submission)

by Kelley VlahosOctober 08, 2010 06:41 AM (PT)Topics: Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice in the Media, Supreme Court, Terrorism, War on Terror

• 15retweet
• 7448 Views

It was like a scene out of The Matrix. Less than 24 hours after 20-year-old Yaser Afifi found what looked like a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device lodged underneath his car and put photos up on the Internet to try and identify it, the Men in Black were seen poking around in his driveway. After a brief, seemingly innocuous exchange with them, he drove off, only to be pulled over minutes later by police wearing bulletproof vests and traveling in unmarked SUVs. The FBI wanted their tracking device back.

“We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate,” one agent supposedly told Afifi when he asked whether they had put the GPS under his car. Afifi shared his story with Wired magazine this week.

Afifi's experience may seem out of the norm for law enforcement activities, but it is not, so far, outside the law. The courts have offered mixed rulings on whether the government can secretly affix cars with GPS without first seeking a court order. For example, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled last month that the government could not monitor individuals in their vehicles without a warrant, but the Fourth District and Ninth Circuit Courts ruled over the summer that it could.

Legal experts say that in order to make the practice -- or the restriction of it -- uniform, the U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in. Afifi contacted the ACLU soon after he discovered the device and was told his was just the kind of case "we throw lawyers at" in hopes of getting the issue an airing before the High Court.

Afifi, who is a native U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent, is a marketing student at Mission College in Santa Clara, where he also resides. His father was the president of the Muslim Community Association in Santa Clara before he moved the family back to Egypt in 2003. Afifi returned to the States to pursue an education and says he works to help provide for his brothers overseas.

He told Wired that he was contacted two years ago by an FBI agent who said they had an anonymous tip that he might be a "threat to national security." Afifi said he would be willing to answer their questions after consulting his lawyer. He never heard from them again. (Read more after the jump.)

Until now. He said his car was on a lift at the auto repair shop when the GPS device was detected. He and his friend put pictures online with hopes of getting the geek community to weigh in on what exactly it was.

"It's a Guardian ST820. It's a GPS tracking unit made by the company Cobham, the product line is called Orion," wrote a commenter by the name of "jeanmarcp." "Sales (are) restricted to army and law enforcement ... yes, FBI or Police is after you."

Wired confirmed with an ex-FBI agent that the photos of the device indeed depicted an older model tracking device, though the agent insisted the FBI in this case must have obtained a warrant before putting it on Afifi's car. Maybe, maybe not. When contacted by the publication, the FBI would not confirm ownership of the device, nor whether its agents had been at Afifi's apartment.

Though the cases tried in federal court so far have involved illegal drug dealing, this latest example might indicate a broader use of warrantless vehicle surveillance in the FBI's domestic terrorism operations. Critics say it looks like another form of FBI intimidation in the Muslim community under the guise of "homeland security."  But because of the secretive nature of counter-terrorism post 9/11, it may be some time before we know how widespread the practice really is.

Some QUESTIONS to consider (but not to limit you):

1. Should GPS monitoring be allowed unconditionally, or with a court order?

2. Is it fair to target Muslims, or people who are "connected" to the Mid-East?

3. How would you make this decision (give back or not)?

4. Should Afifi give it back? Must he give it back?

5.Does this make you feel better or worse about he FBI?

Photo Credit: Yaser Afifi

Kelley Vlahos is a writer for Change.org. She also writes for Antiwar.com and is a contributing editor for The American Conservative. http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/man_finds_gps_device_on_his_car_fbi_demands_it_back

Facebook Abuse a Concern: Peter's post

Facebook is failing to prevent child predators from posting suggestive and potentially illegal photographs of children on its website, a weeks-long investigation by FoxNews.com reveals, despite its claim that it's doing all it can to keep pedophile materials from being displayed.

The world's largest social network employs content filters that automatically scan for basic keywords that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) identifies as being commonly associated with child exploitive material. Those filters, if they are properly employed, should flag much of the offensive material found on the site, cybersecurity experts say.

But in a lengthy telephone interview on Oct. 6, FoxNews.com took two Facebook executives on a click-by-click tour of their own website, bringing them face-to-face with some of its vile contents and forcing them to admit that their efforts to block child predators were not working.

During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture – an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.

In the interview, FoxNews.com told the executives to enter "PTHC" in the website's search box. The term “PTHC” — short for “Pre-Teen Hard Core” — is frequently found in connection with child sexual exploitation activity and materials, law enforcement officials say. Multiple sources confirmed that “PTHC” is on the NCMEC list of keywords.

Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.

At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.

Facebook later said it had launched an investigation into the pages, profiles and video links they had found during the interview. That same day, the “PTHC page” and others were removed from the website.

But much of what FoxNews.com found in its investigation remains active.

During the interview, the Facebook executives emphasized that identifying and removing content that may exploit children is a top priority. They said material flagged by the NCMEC keywords filter is evaluated and, if merited, promptly removed.

“We’re constantly looking to improve our filter system. As we get more information and tactics, we’ll use that to inform our system to make it even better,” Sullivan said.

“Believe me, it’s incredibly frustrating to all of us that they’re trying to share this, I’m so repulsed by the fact — I have three daughters — we have a large number of people who care greatly about these issues throwing a lot of money and technology at them.”

But despite their efforts, FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook -- hundreds of pages with “PTHC” and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms are on the NCMEC keywords list, sources said, and they were found on Facebook's public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.

(Excerpt from Fox News.com/scitech/1010/10/21exclusive-facebook-filters-fall-short-in blocking)

QUESTIONS you might address in your comment (100-200 words). These are just some suggestions.

1. Is anything here surprising?
2. Should the rules for who uses Facebook be changed? Is Facebook safe?
3. Does this change how you think about cyber communication in any way?
4. Do you think that you are ever taking any risks when you are online?
5. Should Facebook be punished in some way?