Every move we make:
The Supreme Court is considering whether police use of GPS devices to track criminal suspects requires a judge's advance approval.
The case being argued Tuesday could have implications for other high-tech surveillance techniques in the digital age.
[. . .]
The government argues that people have no expectation of privacy concerning their travel on public streets.
Don't know about that. Yes, they're public streets, but we use them to go to and from private businesses and residences. In the case in question, the government tracking was able to tie the suspect to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs (good background on the case here).
And the more sophisticated the technology becomes, shouldn't we be more and more vigilant about insisting on our zone of privacy, even extending it if we can, and absolutely ruthless about demanding proof of reasonable suspicion (i.e. a warrant)? With some of the cameras and microphones available now, every detail of what we do can be recorded from so far away we'd never suspect a thing.
