"Too bad there's no way to delete that data and cover your tracks"

Yes there is, it's called an incinerator.

This seriously disturbs me.
I'm in the market for my first portable nav.

Moral of the story?
Don't register your product.

It's not as easy as demanding the records. First, the data might not be self-explanatory. Second, for it to be useful in court, you still need someone to interpret the data.

It's not unlike demanding "black box" data in airbag deployment cases and is another lovely thing to demand during discovery.

Yay billable hours.

that is my local paper....woot!

uh...a demagnetizer may work.

Awesome caption.

@ChopSue-Me: I mean if its for something bad why not go all out? Giant electro magnet, submerge in water, firecrackers, toss off bridge, throw down the sewer, etc.

@curiosa863: dont register your product? what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I can bet 100% there is a way to factory restore those puppies.. you just need to find the button or key combo

You all are assuming they haven't already logged all that information. Sorry, too late.

There was actually a Monk episode where a guy was having someone drive a truck like 5,000 miles so the GPS unit would erase all of the stored data of previous locations.

I think I found that spot shown in the picture:
[maps.google.com],+United+Kingdom&sll=40.79202,-76.42547&sspn=0.011827,0.020084&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=0,51.105123,-1.484655&ll=51.006734,-1.500235&spn=0.019659,0.040169&z=15&om=1

A hammer could probably erase the data.

@curiosa863:
Not registering wouldnt help. If they find the thing in your car or your home and if the movement pattern from the last month match yours then any court in the world will see it as yours. No matter if it is registered or not

@SpeneyG: Or even easier : Leave it at home if you are commiting a crime

Info on Duke's Head pub:
[www.diningpubs.co.uk]

Always wondered if they recorded data. Having been pulled over for speeding WHEN I WASN'T it would be VERY useful to backtrack and show a cop infallible satallite data!!!

@SpeneyG:
Giant electro magnet - Does not affect memory chips
submerge in water - again, does not affect memory chips
firecrackers - Could do but only if the memory chips are destroyed
toss off bridge - yes, if it's irretrievable throw down the sewer - That could work

@ecobore: Stuff like this only works against you.

@Geisrud: "You all are assuming they haven't already logged all that information. Sorry, too late."

That brings up the point I was wondering: Are they pulling the data off the unit's memory or their GPS data access servers somehow..? After all, doesn't triangulating your position by accessing that satellite network require two-way communication?

If the data comes from your personal unit, you've got a chance to hide/destroy it. If the data is coming from their servers, how do they prove which unit is yours?

If the device doesn't operate in a two-way manner (e.g., GPS service via cell phone), then there should be no way to track an individual device's location. By not registering the device and ensuring that there is no outbound communication coming from it, it's no more traceable than the portable radio that you listen to in your car or on the beach.

With respect to subpeonas, local, state, and most federal agencies are required to get a search warrant for records (i.e., cell phone, landline, etc.). Probable cause is required (note that I said 'MOST' federal agencies). There's this one exception that seems to be getting some press lately. The NSA? You may have heard about them.

"Probable cause? We don't need no stinking probable cause!"

@ideaman2020: Destroying evidence is of little value in a legal setting.

Here's a hypothetical. Your Garmin records data. Tou are involved in a car accident and, fearing what the data will reveal, you destroy the Garmin.

If I make a demand for the data and your excuse is "I destroyed it", you're looking possible discovery sanctions, such as being prevented from denying liability. In fact, even "the data was lost after the accident" can result in such sanctions. It is known as "spoliation of evidence" and some jurisdictions even recognize it as an independent cause of action.

In NY, intention to destroy evidence isn't even an issue. The issue is whether you knew or should have known that the evidence would be material to litigation. The defense is based on prejudice: was the evidence crucial to the case? If so, discovery sanctions may be meted out.

Additionally, even if spoliation sanctions aren't doled out, a trial judge can always give the jury a "missing evidence" charge, whereby the jury is advised that there was evidence regarding the issue, that the evidence is missing, and that the jury may draw whatever negative inference it pleases from the loss of the evidence against the party who lost the evidence.

Don't destroy evidence. Not pre-suit. Not after litigation commences. Not ever. It can only hurt you.

I'm pretty sure this is why NYC's cab drivers were willing to "strike" over the installation of GPS' devices in their cabs.

(That and who really needs the hassle of one more device that can break down when 80% of the time it's just telling you how to get from 1st Ave and 3rd St to 8th Ave and 68th St. It's a freakin' grid! Who needs GPS for a freakin' grid!?!)

Good thing my iPhone doesn't have GPS! (grin)

@omg-ponies: What Garmin?

@omg-ponies: Ok, but could one just plead "incompetence"? As in, "Sorry, I lost it..."

I know some people who could unintentionally lose an amazing amount of stuff...

I remember when i thought what Google did was disturbing

@GHMLCO: "Good thing my iPHone doesn't have GPS!"

um... hope that was a joke. Ever heard of E911? What about that triangulation product (GPS-wannabe) for iPhone?

Also, Uncle Sam has soooooo many more ways to track you nowdays. You'd damn near have to drive an old Chevy, not carry any electronic gizmos, heck - even your MP3 player could be rigged to stick a chip that can track you anywhere. No credit cards, no EZPass (for those in N.E. US), stay away from most retail locations and banks, you'd be almost incognito. If it weren't for those pesky license plates.

Next time, when you are going to visit red light street at night, take a walk.

@92BuickLeSabre: Isn't the bottom line you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong? A cab owner wants to know where their cab is when someone else is driving it. Perfectly reasonable.

@SpeneyG: Actually the city wanted cab owners to know where their cabs were.

So the implications are little different.

As for your first sentence, I fundamentally disagree with using that as a way to evaluate essentially any privacy/speech/security issue, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that part.

reason number 2 why i don't own one. having a sense of direction is directly relational to the theories of darwin and evolution. if a machine has to do the work, you need to reconsider possibly investing in a guide or chaffer.

@ideaman2020: That does not work. Read Kirkland v. NYCHA. It's the lead case in NY on spoliation. Another good one is Squitieri v. City of NY.

Negligent destruction of evidence warrants discovery sanctions. Intent is not relevant.

As far as the cab driver strike is concerned, the GPS issue is a red herring. The drivers and the owners hate each other and GPS is just another reason to fight.

Speney: The "only the guilty need to worry about privacy" line has been disregarded by every American court and goes against over two centuries of American history.

In America, every person is secure against unreasonable invasion of his or her privacy. The penumbra of privacy and restriction against unreasonable intrusion of one's person is a fundamental tenet of a republican democracy.

The cab GPS was poorly grafted as a privacy issue. My boss has the right to monitor the computer I use at work because I'm using his computer. Similarly, a cab owner has the right to keep track of his cab, an investment worth several hundred thousand dollars. You're partly correct, but you arrive at the conclusion through a completely legally and constitutionally unsound reasoning process.

Well at least you all have the right to remain silent, and the right to not incriminate yourself.

Im irish, Because of gangland violence and murders we recently lost our right to remain silent. Of course they cant force you to talk, but they can take any meaning they see fit from silence. if you are being questioned about a murder and they ask you if you committed the murder and you dont answer, they can legally take that as a yes.

Too many drug barons were getting away with murder by saying absolutely nothing as soon as they were arrested, it was a plague.

One word: crushbox

@omg-ponies: Actually, on this one you're wrong Ponies. Not about the legal part, but about the taxis.

This was a TLC decision, not a voluntary owner decision; a lot of the owners were actually against it as well - cost, maintenance, oversight of how they used their cabs, etc.

In fact, one of the issues was to what extent and for what reasons the TLC would use the information. And part of the TLC's position in return is that, by entering the regulated Medallion market, owners (and subsequently drivers) had agreed to a reduced Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.

So yes, your boss has a right to monitor you, but that doesn't necessarily mean a NYC agency does.

@jcrochford: well, even if you didn't register it, if it sends its own serial number in the communication, then they can just match it up.

too easy

menu
preferences
track
OFF.
sometimes yous guys make it too hard on yourselves...

Umm you do know that the computer in most modern cars can give speed, acceleration, and braking as well. It's been used in a lot post-crash investigations.

Also the data they are referring to is usually stored in the tracks. You can look through the data on you computer just like they can. Oh and yes you can delete it.

@omg-ponies: Sounds reasonable except that I remember the case where a pair of military pilots sliced a gondola cable flying low to the ground over an Italian ski resort. Killed 20 people doing it. They conveniently lost the camcorder recording they had of the incident. Managed to kill the 20 folks and get away with dishonorable discharges from what I recall.

It appears that "It can only hurt you [to destroy evidence]" doesn't apply in all cases.

@omg-ponies: I never took a nyc cab worth several hundred thousand dollars.

@lulabale: I find that hard to believe. For "yellow cabs", the cost of the cab itself is the lowest part of the cost.

The cost of the cab comes from the cost of the medallion, which gives the cab the right to pick up hails from anywhere in NYC. The cost of a taxi medallion is a little over $300,000.

Next time you take a "yellow cab", look on the hood. Bolted to the hood, you will see a steel medallion. That medallion is worth a lot of money.

@AlfaSpider: I'm talking about in a civil setting. In a civil lawsuit, if you destroy, fail to preserve, or even accidentally fail to preserve evidence, discovery sanctions can and often are doled out. A military court is far from the same as civil litigation.

In motorcycle cases, which tend to have higher damages exposure than auto cases, my first order of business in defending the case is sending out a Notice to Preserve. Because of the exposure, I often receive notification of the claim before the complaint is even filed. I make demands for the leathers and helmet worn and for the motorcycle itself upon learning of the claim to the attorney.

If the plaintiff fails to preserve it, I have a pro forma motion for discovery sanctions because the kind of helmet and leathers worn are crucial to a defense on the plaintiff's conduct (was s/he wearing proper protection?) and the motorcycle treads can be used to demonstrate riding style and sometimes even the angle of attack of turns by experts. There are times when I won't even examine the helmet or motorcycle. But having the notice out there is a good card to be holding.

Products liability is another field of law where this concept is employed. A claim against a manufacturer is often based on not just negligent design and testing, but also negligent manufacture. In order to defend, the argument goes, the actual product is required to determine user misuse. Failure to preserve the evidence hampers the defense of the case and, in some cases, warrants dismissal of the entire claim.

Bear in mind: spoliation is not reserved for intentional destruction. Negligent destruction is just as bad. The Kirkland case, the lead case in NY and one of the lead cases in the country, dealt with the defendant's negligent failure to preserve a stove central to the litigation. The tenant in the apartment needed a new stove and the housing authority workers, when replacing the stove, accidentally threw out the stove instead of putting it into storage. The appellate court found the excuse of bureaucratic stupidity unavailing.

Litigation is like a game. Some compare it to chess, some to poker. There are all sorts of strategies that are used, most of which are employed before the trial stage. Discovery is where a case can be won or lost and there is more to discovery than the ham-handed "flood of paper" attack. With good planning, traps can be laid and weaknesses exploited. It's all how the game is played.