There are convincing arguments to be made for law enforcement agencies' access to location data, like in missing person cases, kidnappings or maybe fugitive situations. It just seems like it ought to be a little more mediated than this:

[At the Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering conference] Sprint Nextel's electronic surveillance manager Paul Taylor described an automated system that law enforcement could use to easily look up subscriber whereabouts.

They can submit a request for a particular user's location up to every three minutes, for a period of 60 days, which accounts for the 8 million figure. What else does Sprint collect about you, for sharing?

Sprint keeps 24 months worth of URL history for some devices and that's not even because of law enforcement. "It's because marketing wants to rifle through the data," [Taylor] said.

The marketing data retention sounds like the kind of thing you might unknowingly sign off on in some kind of unintelligible user agreement, and the location stuff could conceivably be used only in palatable ways (if you broadly consider warranted wiretapping palatable) but they're both reminders that your telco—no, this isn't just Sprint's issue—knows a lot about you. Or, more to the point, that the average cellphone user has no idea how much data their wireless provider is collecting (or can collect) from them, and specifically, how it's used.

Queasy yet? No worries! There's a pharmacy two blocks to the west, and one block to the south. And they have your favorite pills. [PCWorld]

VLAD stands for Vehicle Lightweight Arresting Device, and it's a new gizmo designed to stop car chases and the like without anyone getting hurt. It's a small device, one that's "as small as a spare tire, as light as a tire jack, and costs under a grand." It's an 18-inch-wide disk that you put on the road. When a car goes over it, sticky tentacles fly out and attach themselves to the axle, bringing it to a halt.

It appears to work pretty well in the above video, but that truck is only moving at 35 miles per hour. The creators are hoping to be able to stop a 5,000-pound truck moving at 120 MPH when all is said and done. [Danger Room]

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, the Justice Department has sent back evidence that law enforcement officials can use Triggerfish pretty much whenever they want, without consulting the phone companies. This looks like the use of was could most charitably be called a giant goddamn loophole: secret Triggerfish deployment is OK because it only provides its users with rough location data by pairing serial numbers, phone numbers and other identifiers to a particular tower, rather than the actual content of conversations. The moral problems here are multifaceted, but the practical ones for, you know, fugitives, are easily solved: turn off your phone. You're welcome! [Ars]

Nobody's arguing that it's not easier and more efficient to track a criminal with a GPS tag than by trailing him with a man in a car, Herc and Carv style (even though they like GPS tags, too). What is being questioned, though, is whether this practice can be put into place to track anyone, without having prior consent for a warrant. Currently the answer is an unofficial (ie: a largely unchallenged) yes, as long as the vehicle is tagged on public property and not, say, in the garage. What privacy advocates are arguing, however, is that GPS tracking without a warrant is now approaching invasive, 24-hour surveillance state levels as the gear gets cheaper and more widespread by the day.

A recent ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court is among the first to swing the balance toward requiring warrants for tracking. But until a more definitive ruling, you'll have to stick with dubious GPS bug detectors if you're paranoid. [Washington Post via Slashdot]

As soon as the officer draws his weapon, a red laser light on the five-ounce attachment shoots out, although this can be disabled if the cop feels it might put him in danger, for example, if he or she is in a dimly-lit situation. The camera can continue filming whatever is in the gun's path for up to an hour after being drawn.

Senator Adams, who never once used a gun during his 21 years on the beat, reckons the idea could bolster public confidence in the police. "We believe the state of New York can lead the country," he said. "There no longer can be a question mark that lingers after shootings." There is, as I see it, however, one tiny flaw. If the camera can be turned off by the guy on the right end of the gun—ie, the cop— doesn't that make the system open to potential abuse? [Telegraph]

If they could make a low-powered version of this thing I bet kids would snatch it up. Cuts like butter.

Shocknife [via Tech Ticker]

LAPD to throw GPS at fleeing cars [we make money not art]