The Supreme Court will acknowledge the impact of GPS tracking devices on America’s security today. They will discuss whether or not law enforcement should need to have a warrant before planting a GPS on a person’s car. As of now, the government can track anyone who owns a cell phone…creepy right? It doesn’t matter if you have a smart phone or not, if it is on or off, or if you shut off Bluetooth, you are being tracked everywhere you go. The case they are looking at is U.S. vs Jones, because the police are tracking Antoine Jones’ every movement suspecting that he is involved in drug violations. Jones’ lawyer is stating that the government is violating the Fourth Amendment, “"A person who knows all of another's travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups -- and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts” (cnn.com). GPS tracking devices allow the government to follow us in our public and private lives. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule that warrants are needed, because if they don’t, any “curious police officer, without any judicial oversight” (cnn.com) will be able to check up on us. Personally, I would not want to be watched for no reason. If I am suspected of committing some crime, I would appreciate a warrant before I am followed, watched, taken pictures of, or anything of the like. We trust Police Officers to have our best interest in mind but you cannot trust anyone in this day and age and I would not feel comfortable knowing that any curious government official could watch my every move. It’s really creepy.
The author of this article is biased and seems to not like the idea of being watched either. Catherine Crump, the writer, uses subtle but persuasive words to sway her readers against GPS tracking devices being used by the government. By using the word ‘our’ in the quote, “Cell phone tracking can reveal our private associations and relationships with one another” (cnn.com), Crump is bringing herself into the article and the argument. She did not say “people’s private associations and relationships with another” she said “our”. This is subtle enough to possibly go unnoticed, but strong enough to make it clear that she has a bias and does not want GPS tracking. She also did not use any quotes, which did not help her argument. I would’ve liked to see a quote from Jones himself to see how he felt about this argument.
Crump, Catherine. "How GPS tracking threatens our privacy - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/opinion/crump-gps/index.html?hpt=us_t4>.
No comments:
Post a Comment