Oil Change Find FBI Tracing Device
- Thread starter BBDartCA
- Start date
- Status
The oil change tech showed the tracking device to the service writer.
The service writer then told the owner of the car that the GPS tracking device really needed to be replaced with a new one.
The service writer then told the owner of the car that the GPS tracking device really needed to be replaced with a new one.
Big Brother never sleeps.
The funny thing is, they got the balls to go to this guys home and ask for the tracing device back...LOL
Yeah, we put a trace on you, and we want it back.
Yeah, we put a trace on you, and we want it back.
If I found such a thing, it would be fun to spend a few dollars, and have it ground shipped to the middle of nowhere, like Rapid City or Boise.
If it were ground shipped, the boys doing the tracking would assume the suspect was driving the trip, since speeds would be similar.
This would have driven the FBI boys crazy.
Also, who is to say I would have known anything about the device?
What device?
I have no idea what you're talking about, my friend.
If it were ground shipped, the boys doing the tracking would assume the suspect was driving the trip, since speeds would be similar.
This would have driven the FBI boys crazy.
Also, who is to say I would have known anything about the device?
What device?
I have no idea what you're talking about, my friend.
Is this guy a citizen who is protected by the USA constitution?
Is the FBI doing this at random for no reason?
Guess who's side I am on with this one.
Is the FBI doing this at random for no reason?
Guess who's side I am on with this one.
I think we at BITOG are forgetting the most important thing here, what was his OCI, did he do a UOA, what oil did he use?
In all seriousness if i found this i would try to put it on a metro bus or a airport shuttle van, even the customer shuttle at my work.
In all seriousness if i found this i would try to put it on a metro bus or a airport shuttle van, even the customer shuttle at my work.
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
They were stupid. They should have managed to own the car at some point before his purchase ..through a shell "credit car" agency ..and had them install on all cars. The car magically makes its way to the very place where ..oddly enough, that car is the only one he's qualified to own. A little extra paper work here...a few signatures while he's signing a bunch of stuff anyway... No profiling ..but he just happens to be their only customer at the moment ..among a long list of "usual suspects".
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
It was done without a warrant - they don't need a warrant for tracking with GPS. That's the whole point of the legal argument about warrant-less surveillance.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
It was done without a warrant - they don't need a warrant for tracking with GPS. That's the whole point of the legal argument about warrant-less surveillance.
Hey, I'm pro-cop. Cop-time and judge-time is expensive. If they went to the trouble, they had their reasons. I have to give our system credit, absent mistakes and over-reliance on paid finks (something that goes on far too much in Federal Law enforcement), folks that are drawing scrutiny from a fairly pricey law enforcement establishment are up to something when they draw said scrutiny. I'm glad we have Miranda (such as it is these days), warrant requirements, rules against ill-gotten fruit in court, but 99% of law is pretty good in this country. Cops really aren't interested if you cooperate and really aren't up to no good. Now, when it comes to PROSECUTORS, we have another conversation to conduct, but judges handle that stuff. I know peeps get caught up in circumstances, but it's pretty rare (I know, I know, until it's YOU or ME).
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
It was done without a warrant - they don't need a warrant for tracking with GPS. That's the whole point of the legal argument about warrant-less surveillance.
I realize that. That was the point I was trying to make that I don't agree with warrant-less surveillance. If they have reason to be suspicious then they'd have reason to get a warrant. And I think they should have to get the warrant first.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
"She said Afifi was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East, which include supporting two brothers who live in Egypt and making frequent overseas trips. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt.
"Yasir hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of surveillance," Billoo said. "This was a blatant example of profiling."
Maybe there's more to this than we know....
There probably is. They probably had enough cause of suspicion to get a judge to issue a warrant and that is the way I wished it go.
It was done without a warrant - they don't need a warrant for tracking with GPS. That's the whole point of the legal argument about warrant-less surveillance.
I realize that. That was the point I was trying to make that I don't agree with warrant-less surveillance. If they have reason to be suspicious then they'd have reason to get a warrant. And I think they should have to get the warrant first.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Probably. But since legally they can track anyone with a GPS without a warrant then why go through the trouble of justifying it and creating precedent?
Can you tell me more about "legally tracking with GPS without warrant"? Are you telling me that a "bug" can be installed in "perp"'s vehicle without any warrant legally as long as the "bug" is not of the type which sends "audio" signal?
I have heard some crazy rationales to bypass federal wiretap statutes such as claiming "video" recording is not applicable to wiretaps etc. Is this something crazily similar?
- Vikas
Probably. But since legally they can track anyone with a GPS without a warrant then why go through the trouble of justifying it and creating precedent?
Can you tell me more about "legally tracking with GPS without warrant"? Are you telling me that a "bug" can be installed in "perp"'s vehicle without any warrant legally as long as the "bug" is not of the type which sends "audio" signal?
I have heard some crazy rationales to bypass federal wiretap statutes such as claiming "video" recording is not applicable to wiretaps etc. Is this something crazily similar?
- Vikas
Last edited:
What gives them the right to tamper with private property? Even if the car was on a public stret, an agent had to get under the car and attach the device.
Basically the courts have ruled that if your car is on public property (including your driveway!!!) there is no expectation of privacy so they can attach anything they want so long as it doesn't damage your property.
Welcome to the land of the free....1984 style. They want to do this with CELL PHONES and INTERNET usage as well.
Amazing that they wanted the unit back. I would have placed it on a UPS truck or something.
Welcome to the land of the free....1984 style. They want to do this with CELL PHONES and INTERNET usage as well.
Amazing that they wanted the unit back. I would have placed it on a UPS truck or something.
So here is a though:
If FBI is busted for placing a trace on a guy, can they now mandate him to keep the trace on? If so, is it equivalent to placing a monitoring device on a non convicted criminal?
If not, is it illegal for him to throw the trace in the trash? Why not?
If it is legal for him to throw the trace in the trash, can he flat out refuse to return the trace?
It will sure get confusing if he wants to play hard ball and find a blood thirsty civil right lawyer.
If FBI is busted for placing a trace on a guy, can they now mandate him to keep the trace on? If so, is it equivalent to placing a monitoring device on a non convicted criminal?
If not, is it illegal for him to throw the trace in the trash? Why not?
If it is legal for him to throw the trace in the trash, can he flat out refuse to return the trace?
It will sure get confusing if he wants to play hard ball and find a blood thirsty civil right lawyer.
Last edited:
If they attach something to my car in a public place, I would consider it a gift and not return it.
They are using the public space argument, so I'd use it against them as well.
There is no contract here.
They are using the public space argument, so I'd use it against them as well.
There is no contract here.
Originally Posted By: Concours14
Hey, I'm pro-cop. Cop-time and judge-time is expensive. If they went to the trouble, they had their reasons. I have to give our system credit, absent mistakes and over-reliance on paid finks (something that goes on far too much in Federal Law enforcement), folks that are drawing scrutiny from a fairly pricey law enforcement establishment are up to something when they draw said scrutiny. I'm glad we have Miranda (such as it is these days), warrant requirements, rules against ill-gotten fruit in court, but 99% of law is pretty good in this country. Cops really aren't interested if you cooperate and really aren't up to no good. Now, when it comes to PROSECUTORS, we have another conversation to conduct, but judges handle that stuff. I know peeps get caught up in circumstances, but it's pretty rare (I know, I know, until it's YOU or ME).
Thanks, you just gave me a great way of getting out of any future jury duty.
Hey, I'm pro-cop. Cop-time and judge-time is expensive. If they went to the trouble, they had their reasons. I have to give our system credit, absent mistakes and over-reliance on paid finks (something that goes on far too much in Federal Law enforcement), folks that are drawing scrutiny from a fairly pricey law enforcement establishment are up to something when they draw said scrutiny. I'm glad we have Miranda (such as it is these days), warrant requirements, rules against ill-gotten fruit in court, but 99% of law is pretty good in this country. Cops really aren't interested if you cooperate and really aren't up to no good. Now, when it comes to PROSECUTORS, we have another conversation to conduct, but judges handle that stuff. I know peeps get caught up in circumstances, but it's pretty rare (I know, I know, until it's YOU or ME).
Thanks, you just gave me a great way of getting out of any future jury duty.
- Status
