TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:If in fact a GPS tracking device helps law enforcement with catching criminals/terrorists why would any law abiding citizen protest?

Or, are we afraid that Big Brother is arbitrarily infringing on the rights of the law abiding?

Some of what I've read so far seems to indicate a knee-jerk negative reaction to law enforcement using technology that has the potential for misuse, but is there a solid reason to indiscriminately distrust those who presumably keep us safe from enemies both foreign and domestic?

I see no one touting the "virtues of GPS tracking" i.e., On Star has presumably helped a lot of people and EPIRB's have saved sailors all over the world.

Admittedly, I know little about this overall issue - so can someone enlighten me what this GPS tracking fuss is about?

My objection is not to the GPS tracking per se, I thoroughly enjoyed the demo we saw during Citizens' Police Academy, the part that bothers me is the warrantless. Thus, as a law abiding citizen, I expect that any such device I find on my vehicle is there illegally due to the action of persons unknown. I might or might not report it to the police, but I would surely remove it.

PeteCamp wrote:

So it would require carrying on a conversation or sending some sort of information back and forth, at a power level sufficient to swamp the receiver, on a frequency not allowed to hams except on a low power, non-interfering, basis, sorry, still illegal, even carrying on a conversation.

I must have misunderstood what you said. I wasn't aware that operating legally, which means not intentionally interfering with anyone, was illegal when a clandestine govt GPS device, whose existence you are unaware of, was in the area. Something about burden of proof (Who would know what was causing the GPS to not receive?) and presumption of innocence. IANAL, but I think that would be slightly harder to prove in court than intentionally and willfully destroying a piece of govt hardware. To repeat, I think the best and safest way to deal with such a device would be to remove it from your property and put it somewhere exciting.

The fun part would be deciding where. I like falling in the Bay.

You need to review some of the FCC holdings on "operating legally."

Just the same, who would know that the GPS didn't fall onto the ferry between Galveston and Bolivar?

PeteCamp wrote:

So it would require carrying on a conversation or sending some sort of information back and forth, at a power level sufficient to swamp the receiver, on a frequency not allowed to hams except on a low power, non-interfering, basis, sorry, still illegal, even carrying on a conversation.

If I destroy it, they would have to prove I knew it was government property

I don't care to argue about this with anyone. I have no idea of your qualifications or expertise in ham radio or radio equipment design. Suffice it to say that the issue is not who or what is transmitting, or even really on what frequency. The issue is the reality that most manufacturers do not design sufficient discrimination into receivers to keep them from being overpowered by nearby transmissions of a legal nature on different bands. This has been a well known problem for many, many years. It began with TV receivers. FCC rulings have almost universally decreed that if you don't want your receiver overpowered by adjacent legal signals, then design and filter it better. No one has to use an illegal frequency. It doesn't even have to be in the same band. A perfectly legal transmission by a ham on a nearby band can shut down numerous types of receivers because of the huge differences in legal, allowable power output by ham radios. As long as the ham radio is not putting out spurious emissions, and is on a legal band, the burden is on the receiver to reject that interference. Unless the GPS owner complained to the ham, he would probably have no idea there was a problem. I could cite numerous technical articles, but it's not worth it.

Suffice to say that on a legal band (and amateur radios have allowable bands everywhere), carrying on a conversation, regardless of mode, or broadcasting certain types of legal information for other hams, it is not illegal to carry on that conversation. If the GPS does not have the adjacent channel rejection, I can filter my transmissions somewhat to assist it in overcoming the blanketing effect. But ultimately it is the problem of the GPS manufacturer.

Anyway, as I said, this is a legal, but not practical solution. And given the current administration and AG Holder, do you really think they wouldn't find you guilty of destruction of govt property?
Pete - AE5J

de K5NRA, Then why argue with me? I did say "swamp the receiver" and as such most would understand I did not mean operating in the same frequency or band, and it matters not how much or little rejection the receiver has, if the ham operator is interfering, on purpose, then the ham operator is at fault, which is NOT legal. It is illegal to carry on the converstaion if you know, or even suspect, or should know, that you are causing interference. Lots and lots of FCC case law on that, even up to and including hams interfering with poorly designed telephones which were demodulating signals from properly operating ham stations, not even rf devices. The hams, in multiple cases had to shut down, or confine operation to certain hours, especially in cases of TVI, even including poorly designed TV receivers.

While I agree that the manufacturers are putting out some pretty poor equipment, I have seen lots of evidence of that, including a dimmer switch that worked real good as an rx on 20 cw, without even a high power signal nearby.

When I was the FCC Commercial licensee for NY Telephone Company, for the upstate region of NY State, I was involved as an engineer as well as as a ham, in investigating many such cases, and answering FCC queries and pink slips about them.

I could go into all of the other types of investigations I have done and equipment I have used, but the point remains that if they even suspect you are interfering, on purpose, you will be in as much trouble as if they suspect that you found and removed the offending device. and they would still have to have, including Holder, some sort of indication that the device had been found, which would be quite obvious if you were to suddenly set up a station in your vehicle that was capable of interfering with a 1.5GHz receiver, whether by desensitizing it or by mixing signals.

mortdooley wrote:I have a GMC SUV and a GMC Pickup, yesterday I got a call from On-Star and told them what I thought of their product. They asked me if I knew On-Star for my pickup was about to expire and I asked them if they knew I never activated it when I bought it? On-Star is nothing more then a cell phone, GPS and link to the on board computer so they can track and disable my vehicle anytime, for any reason. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I shouldn't expect privacy as a human right. No way am I going to pay a monthly fee for an intrusion to my privacy, several do-gooders will call 911 if I have an accident, I can read a road map or buy a dedicated GPS and I have it insured against theft.

Several years ago, just as On-Star was being introduced to the world, another tech support engineer and I had to go do some overnight work in a foreign city (Brooklyn, NY) and the rental car had On-Star.

I knew what it was, but the other guy did not, and we had a classic "What's this button do?" situation happen. "Hey did you see the buttons on the mirror? I wonder what they do?" and all of a sudden the radio is saying "This is the On-Star operator, my name is Jason, what is your emergency?"

ROFL - I had to pull the car over I was laughing so hard.

PeteCamp wrote:

Broadcasting a signal with the intent to block another ssignal is illegal.

Two hams discussing whatever usings radios in the same car is not illegal. Destroying the thing might be more likely to get you charged with willful destruction of govt property. However, the best idea yet would be to remove it and affix it to a more lucrative target.

So it would require carrying on a conversation or sending some sort of information back and forth, at a power level sufficient to swamp the receiver, on a frequency not allowed to hams except on a low power, non-interfering, basis, sorry, still illegal, even carrying on a conversation.

If I destroy it, they would have to prove I knew it was government property, that I destroyed it, that I even knew it was there.

PeteCamp wrote:

With some of my ham equipment I could find it in seconds, and may just start scanning my vehicles routinely.

You also know that as a ham you could "blanket" the GPS receiver using a couple of high power microwave transcievers in close proximity. All perfectly legal. However, I still like the idea of finding the device, removing it, and attaching it to a trash truck. Maybe even some philandering judge?

Broadcasting a signal with the intent to block another ssignal is illegal. Now if I happened to be running a microwave intrusion detection system about my home and their receiver got swamped by my legal limit system, it might be another matter, but the main GPS frequency is not one that I am licensed to transmit on.

Better to find it, and as you suggest, put it somewhere else, but my temptation, stated before, is upon finding such a thing attached to my vehicle, and since I do still do some minor self-maintenance or my own vehicles, I know them pretty well, destroy it, having been presented no warrant, and then report the find to the police while playing dumb.

"Yeah, Ah seed this yer thang hangin' unner mah back bumper n jest coun't 'magine whut it maht be fer, but I knowed it warnt unner thar last week when I greased her up."

chasfm11 wrote:

jimlongley wrote: I wonder what they would say about my right to destroy my own property as long as I'm not committing fraud, etc.

If the GPS device is attached to my property, my vehicle, on my property, my driveway, and it doesn't have any identifying marks, it seems to me that I could remove it, just like I might remove some other part of the car, and throw it away. How am I supposed to know it's supposed to be there legally?

I wonder how easy it would be to detect that you had one of those. Depending on how good the device was hidden, it might take some fairly sophisticated electronics to know that it is there. My guess is that many new GM products already have them and that it would not even require the Government to do anything but tap into that signal. After all, the air waves are "public."

With some of my ham equipment I could find it in seconds, and may just start scanning my vehicles routinely.

Fangs wrote:"The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201315000

Short, interesting read. Granted, it's the 9th circuit court's ruling, but still.

I wonder what they would say about my right to destroy my own property as long as I'm not committing fraud, etc.

If the GPS device is attached to my property, my vehicle, on my property, my driveway, and it doesn't have any identifying marks, it seems to me that I could remove it, just like I might remove some other part of the car, and throw it away. How am I supposed to know it's supposed to be there legally?