Archive for GPS Tracking

Big Brother to track school kids with radio chip

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on October 8, 2012 by saynsumthn

From PC World

As part of a controversial trial that could someday include 112 schools and nearly 100,000 students, Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, recently issued students at two of its campuses new badges with an embedded RFID (radio-frequency identification) chip in order to track their locations.

Unlike passive chips that transmit data only when scanned by a reader, these chips have batteries and broadcast a constant signal so they can track students’ exact locations on school property, down to where they’re sitting—whether it’s at a desk, in a counselor’s office, or on the toilet.

The program went live on October 1 at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School where students now must wear the new badges in a lanyard around their necks. Without the badge, a student can’t access the library and cafeteria, or buy tickets to extracurricular activities. The school district has threatened to suspend, fine or involuntarily transfer students who refuse to wear them.

One reason the school district decided to try the tracking badges was to get state funding. “Because budgets are tied to average daily attendance, schools lose cash—as much as $175,000 a day—if students aren’t in their seats when homerooms do roll call in the morning. However, if the student is on campus, they’re technically present,” states the website ChipFreeSchools.com.

First and Fourth Amendment issues
Yet people continue to voice privacy and legal concerns.

In August, several privacy advocacy groups put out a position paper (PDF) which argues that RFID tracking in schools violates students’ rights to free speech and association because the technology tracks not only an individual’s location, but it can monitor which people congregate together.

The paper also maintains that mandating that students wear RFID chips conditions them to accept a Big Brother world.

WND – reports :

Brushing aside privacy concerns by parents and civil rights activists, a Texas school district has gone live with a controversial program requiring all students to wear a locator radio chip that will enable officials to track their every move – or face expulsion.

At the beginning of the school year students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School within the Northside Independent School District were told their old student ID badges were no longer valid. During registration they were required to obtain new badges containing a radio frequency identification tracker chip.

Students refusing the chips were reportedly threatened with suspension, fines, or being involuntary transferred. Unlike chips used by retailers to track inventory which activate when scanned by a reader, these chips contain batteries and actively broadcast a continuous signal.

Read rest of story at WND – here

THE YouTube post has this statement:
The Hernandez Family is spearheading the fight against RFID Tags, and Andrea Hernandez has taken her stand on the school grounds, refusing this indoctrination, by not wearing “the mark” Which also makes her marked. Andrea was gathering signatures on a petition for a moratorium on the RFID Tags after school, and was harassed by NISD lackeys to hand over the documents claiming she could not do so on school grounds, and forced her to leave the property or face arrest by the schools’ Black Boots, also frothing around her. Back in this writer’s day, we had student councils, we liked to fight issues at school, and it is our right to petition the school with grievances! Apparently that’s not the case anymore according to Andrea, now it seem’s the school keeps their cattle in line from the top down by putting pressure on people with academical threats, and persuasion through incentives. Andrea was even told by the Superintendent, that her failure to participate in the pilot program might get her transferred to another school, kicked out, fined or other forms of removal. On one account, she spoke of her being given the option to wear the old/new plastic bar code if she would come out in favor of the new RFID system and that they would “give her back her rights”, seeing the hypocrisy of the suggestion, and the insult to her humanity, she declined. What are they teaching your kids with that methodology? Think of the dog training method. They can’t buy or check out books, can’t buy tickets to events without it!? Teachers giving candy, to high school students for wearing the tracker, and scolding them by not giving candy to those that don’t wear it! How likely will that generation, or the next, when adults, be willing to take RFID in the body so they won’t forget it for work, or a license, bank account, and all the like that have been put out as reasons to get a CHIP implanted?

Is Big Brother watching You?

Posted in Big Brother, GPS, InfraGard, Microchip, RFID, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Conspiracy Theory: Big Brother on truTV.com Video, posted with vodpod

Big Brother is Tracking: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Warrantless GPS Tracking

Posted in Big Brother, GPS with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

From The Newspaper.com 12/1/2010

Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Warrantless GPS Tracking
Ohio Court of Appeals green lights warrantless police surveillance of any motorist with GPS.

The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that police do not need to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracking device to anyone’s vehicle. The case arose after paid informants told the Butler County Sheriff’s Office that Sudinia Johnson was involved in selling cocaine. Acting on this information, Detective Mike Hackney attached a pager-sized GPS tracker to the undercarriage of Johnson’s white Chevy van.

The GPS unit uploaded information regarding the van’s location to a website that Hackney regularly checked. This information was used to follow the van from Chicago back to Ohio, with police prepared to make a traffic stop with drug-sniffing canines as soon as Johnson entered Butler County, as long as “they were able to find probable cause to make a stop,” according to Hackney’s testimony.

Johnson allegedly made an improper right-hand turn — one police later admitted was a perfectly safe maneuver — and was pulled over and searched. No drugs were found after two thorough searches, but Johnson admitted to police that “you guys got me.” He then proceeded to admit he was going to sell cocaine that he picked up in Chicago that was in another vehicle. In court, Johnson’s lawyer argued that both the traffic stop and the GPS tracking violated the law. A trial judge did not agree and Johnson was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in jail. The three-judge appellate panel found no fault with this outcome.

“We find that placing the GPS on the van and monitoring its movement did not constitute a search or seizure under either the federal or Ohio Constitution,” Judge Robert A. Hendrickson wrote for the court. “Johnson did not produce any evidence that demonstrated his intention to guard the undercarriage of his van from inspection or manipulation by others…. Supreme Court precedent has established not only that a vehicle’s exterior lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy, but also that one’s travel on public roads does not implicate Fourth Amendment protection against searches and seizures.”

Last week, however, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit specifically rejected this line of reasoning (view opinion). The Ohio judges also rejected the contrary rulings of the highest courts in New York, Oregon and Washington state on the grounds that their state constitutions offered greater protections from government intrusion than Ohio’s.

“Essentially, Johnson argues that should law enforcement be permitted to install and monitor GPS devices without first obtaining a warrant, the government has unfettered and instantaneous access to a person’s whereabouts,” Hendrickson wrote. “We do not disagree with Johnson that GPS surveillance could report a person’s location at these or any location. However, Johnson fails to recognize that when a person chooses to drive their vehicle to the minister, psychiatrist, abortion clinic, etc, they are voluntarily letting that fact be known to anyone on the roads, or anyone choosing to follow them, of their intended destination. Law enforcement need not obtain a warrant to observe where a driver chooses to drive on public roads, nor do they need to obtain a warrant to observe via a GPS device where a driver chooses to drive.”

A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Ohio v. Johnson (Court of Appeals, State of Ohio, 11/29/2010) /news/33/3338.asp