When the Police in Maryland, U.S, suspected a nightclub owner of running a major drug dealing operation, they were not unsurprisingly, rather keen to find out where he went every day, and who he was meeting. It is an expensive operation, to track an individual 24 hours a day, requiring many expensive personnel.  They cut the cost by attaching a GPS tracker to his car. It enabled them to know where he, or at least his car, was at any given point of the day. Hurrah! No more losing the suspect at traffic lights!

Taking this action enabled the law enforcement forces to find 100 kilograms of cocaine and $1 million in cash when they finally raided a property that he visited. Was that a a good result? Lawyers were outraged; it violated ‘his reasonable expectation of privacy’ and should only have been permissible with the sanction of a judge, in the same way as a search of his house would have done, not merely on the whim of the police force or in an effort to save money. The man’s conviction for drug dealing was overturned, on the grounds that the information had been obtained illegally.

Down in deepest Surrey, U.K, police are also preparing to use GPS trackers without the sanction of a judge. To track sex offenders you wonder? Nope. Drug dealers? Nope. Entirely innocent citizens – in the name of saving money.

Fed up with the expense of ‘police time and resources’ involved in finding elderly vulnerable citizens, who, by definition, are fully deserving of care under the much vaunted ‘care in the community’ programme, they propose to fit them with GPS tracking devices. A mere £100 each. This is not, they stress, the same as tagging criminals, for ‘electronic tags are worn round the ankle, these devices are worn round the waist or the neck….’

Presumably it is only a short step to implanting such a device, for that is ‘obviously different’ to an electronic tag which can be removed after a set period! If we accept implants for the elderly, ‘for their own good’, why not children? Who can ignore the danger children face in today’s paedophile filled world? If all children are implanted – then it is merely a matter of waiting 20 years before you have adults who are so implanted…

No lawyers have been outraged. Any more than they were outraged when it was revealed that thousands of vulnerable people have been deprived of their liberty ‘for their own good’ without any authority, simply because they wished to go somewhere and care staff either didn’t want to go with them or were too under staffed to spare the time.

This morning there are emotive articles saying what a ‘good thing’ this new technology is, that it will allow families and carers to give ‘more freedom’ to dementia sufferers. That might be a valid argument had the dementia sufferer given their permission in advance to be tracked in this way, in the same manner that you could give a lasting power of attorney to someone to allow them to make other decisions for you and avoid the Court of Protection. That hasn’t happened.

The Telegraph has revealed that one company alone, Buddi, has supplied such devices to over 90% of local councils allegedly providing ‘care’ to elderly patients. Nobody appears sure quite what oversight, if any, is given to this practice, nor who should be responsible for monitoring it.

If there was so much as a hint of such practices being undertaken against criminals there would be an outcry. Civil Right’s organisations would be in uproar. Why do we care so much more about criminal’s rights than we do about victims of dementia?

rabbitaway May 3, 2013 at 11:55

‘Victim’s Rights ….’
I wonder why some human rights group is not
challenging what is happening in relation to the yewtree affair ! Whilst
posting on Moor’s sitr just now I quipped – ‘where’s AGE CONCERN when you need
them ?’ All these 80 + men being named and shamed and left at the mercy of the
jackals of the press etc. Makes me wonder WHO the real VICTIMS are. There has
to be a change in the law in regard to allegations of historic sexual abuse.
Fast forward perhaps five years from now – ‘JIMMY’s LAW’ some statute or other
passed to ensure that the accused has the same right as the accuser who is
allowed the privilege of anonymity. Why should these claims just be accepted
without thorough investigation ? Any idea’s anyone of how ‘Jimmy’s law’ would
look ?

Ho Hum May 3, 2013 at 12:28

As if! It’s more likely to say

‘Every male is guilty of a sexual offence automatically resulting in
their being entered on the Sex Offenders Register if they have any form of
physical contact with any female without having a signed agreement from that
female in respect of each and every contact, in the explicit form set out in
section 2 which include details of each and every form of act which the
female has agreed to participate in and the frequency with which such act
shall be permitted, together with and all other terms and conditions that
the female may set out as a precondition for such physical contact.

An offence shall be deemed to have been committed if the female has not
only given signed consent prior to contact but provided a confirmatory
signature after the physical contact to provide proof that the terms and
conditions of the agreement were not breached.

These offences shall be strict liability offences and no defendent may
enter a not guilty plea, make any defence, or plead any mitigating
circumstances

Failure to complete the optional Satisfaction Audit section shall not in
itself create an offence, but if completed by the female, a score of less
than 80% shall make the male liable to a fixed penalty to be determined by
the local Wimmins Sex Offenders Punishment Committee’

rabbitaway
May 3, 2013 at 12:58

@Ho Hum – nicely thought out Mr Hum – I’ve watched enough real cop
shows now to know that somewhere ‘tween hands pulled up behind yer back
and arse in back of van a police officer says summat like ‘ you have the
right to remain silent …..’. Shame the rest of those involved are not MADE
to remain silent whilst proper investigations are made …..Give me strength
….but wait ….someone has to see sense ….it will happen once the idiots
wake up to how much this is costing the tax payer ….Oh yes, then they’ll
be interested ……but hang fire …..isn’t that why they are NOT bloody
investigating ? I notice that alot of the SJS stuff was done on the phone
…..Think on ……

“Press 1 if your attacker is still alive
“Press 2 if your attacker
is dead

At either 1 or 2 the line goes dead (as it does) ……YOU DECIDE …..!

Anna
Raccoon May 3, 2013 at 13:20

Ho Hum, I wish I could believe that you were just being witty –
unfortunately, I think that depressingly, you may well be accurately
predicting the future.

Robbie May 3, 2013 at 10:36

But surely it goes without saying that this is no substitute to proper
care? The fact is, lots of elderly and extremely vulnerable people DO go
missing, and not all of them turn up safe and sound. Yes, in a perfect world
they wouldn’t go astray in the first place, but last time I looked, this world
was far from perfect.

Robbie May 3, 2013 at 10:02

Am I the only person who thinks this is a great idea? For those that are
paranoid about the State’s intrusion into people’s private lives, I suggest
you study RIPA, and quite how restrictive that is to the police etc.
Otherwise, having experienced the cold dread of when a confused loved one has
gone missing for more than their usual 15 minutes, I fail to see the issue.
I’m sure the local police have got bigger worries than spying on dear old Ivy
via their new GPS system!

Moor
Larkin May 3, 2013 at 10:09

I think the concern is more that Efficiency may dictate that we “tag ‘em
and forget ‘em”. They’ll be easy enough to find come feeding time.

binao May 3, 2013 at 08:49

At one extreme, we could subject heavily care dependent people to a Matrix
type existence and remove all risks, perhaps while providing permanent
pleasure stimuli. At the other extreme, we might just let nature take it’s
course.
Clearly the first, regardless of moral objections, is not
technically possible, and the second uncaring.
Having seen the wandering
neighbour problem, I can well see the benefit of a tag. In an ideal world we
would I think look to the near family to make the judgement about deploying
such a device. Unfortunately todays society doesn’t always work that way, and
the duty falls to local authorities. Inevitably they need powers to do
anything, and must manage costs, one of these being from litigation wrt any
failure in carrying out that duty. That will determine the application of the
scheme, care and dignity second.
For practical purposes it is likely such a
service would require standardisation, whether run privately or by local
authority.
So slippery slope or not, there doesn’t seem to be much
option.
We’re already well down that slope with the level of public
surveillance in Britain, automatic fines for blowing your nose on the wrong
side of the road on an even day and the rest.
When we are offered that
minute implant that is passport, driving licence, credit and bank ID
throughout the civilised world and tracks us too, won’t most of the younger
generation snap it up? The criminals will be ahead of the game, as always.

A very belated welcome back, Anna.

Mewsical May 3,
2013 at 02:03

Without cameras on the street, we would not have i.d.’ed the Boston bombers
as quickly as we did here. The cameras were actually the property of Lord
& Taylor, a big department store in Boston, but even so it was a huge
help. Britain has far more of those street cameras, at least as I understand
it, and personally, the way the world is nowadays, probably a good idea, if
only as a deterrent.

Far as GPS or microchipping options for elderly dementia sufferers, that’s
entirely the decision of their caregivers, who have the obligation to provide
that care. Only they know the individual habits of the dementia patient, but I
think a broad range of devices to assist should be available.

I work in the probate area of law these days, and conservatorship is a big
part of that, so I’ve become familiar with some of the stuff that goes on. Not
all of it nice, either. And not all of it surrounding the elderly.

Frankie May 2, 2013 at 22:57

I think, having looked after a close relative with dementia that this would
be a good thing. I cannot see that it can solely be about saving money, but it
is certainly true that it would, if it worked, save money into the
bargain.

John West May 2, 2013 at 15:33

Looks like there will be a new job category to round up the stray droolers
as they wander off the plantation … I suggest ‘Feeb Wrangler’ as a job
classification.

Send em out in a fleet of Prius’ armed with milk, cookies and some hard
candy.

Mick Anderson
May 2, 2013 at 12:34

My late Father had an unusual form of dementia, but went for a two hour
walk on his own every afternoon (+/-10 minutes) even after he could no longer
talk. One day he became lost, only turning up 14 hours and 15 miles away (he
had been a marathon runner and was still rather fit). As a result, my Mother
sewed a mobile phone into his jacket so that we could trace that if he didn’t
arrive home in time (it never happened again). I don’t like the idea of
forcing anybody to do anything, but it was the best way to give everybody
peace of mind.

My Father would have not objected if he had understood at the time, but he
would have been the first to refuse such a thing when he was still well, and I
suspect that most of those this apply to would take the same view. He always
hated to feel that he was a burden. If care homes were offering this it would
be seen as a service, but when the Police offer this it’s seen as intrusion.
To me, that speaks volumes as to the low esteem that the Police are now held
in.

Remember that many people now carry a GPS data logger with them
voluntarily, called a mobile phone. iPhones build a geographic history file
hidden in the OS, and I’m sure other PDA phones will as well. I wouldn’t be
surprised to find that the Police are in position to routinely recover this
information from anybody they apprehend without Judical scrutiny.

JoBlow May 2, 2013 at 13:56

my dad started seeing dancing mice on top the wardrobe and started
wandering in the street at night but I would have ever had him tagged. A
simple electronic beam at the front door that rang at night did the
trick.

Mick Anderson
May 2, 2013 at 19:45

His walks were a daily feature, and something that he enjoyed. There
was little enough for him to take pleasure from by then, and he would
never have been able to understand why he couldn’t go any more. If we’d
used an alarm to keep him in, he would have seen that as imprisonment. We
knew at the time that he his road sense was fine, and we live in an area
where nobody was likely to do him any harm.

Dementia is a very broad category, and you can’t tell what an
individuals needs are from the single word. My wife regularly sees
imaginary mice (or similar), but that’s down to the booze.

Mudplugger May 2, 2013 at 12:28

The problem with anything like this ‘new technology’ is mission-creep. It
starts with applications which are generally agreed to be positive and
beneficial but then, when no-one’s looking, our masters start to stretch the
‘mission’ into areas which infringe personal liberty.

No-one ever told you when you got a mobile phone that, if you leave it
switched on while carrying it, you are thereby offering the ‘authorities’ a
complete historical trace of your movements. While this may prove helpful in
investigating serious crime, it is proving increasingly helpful in all manner
of covert surveillance by agencies of the state and others. That helpful GPS
mapping system in your company van may get you to unknown addresses so
efficiently, but it also reports to your employer and others, in real-time,
all your whereabouts and even your vehicle’s speed, gear-changes, stops, fuel
consumption etc.

Mission-creep is a slippery-slope, we accept its foothills far too
easily.

JimS May 2, 2013 at 12:21

why not children? Who can ignore the danger children face in today’s
paedophile filled world?

I thought all children were self-tagged nowadays. They might think
they are just texting…

Jonathan Mason
May 2, 2013 at 11:51

Britain seems to be very badly legislated over these kind of things.

For example, in the US, if a person is to be admitted involuntarily to a
mental hospital, this can be done in an emergency by the police for
observation, but no medication can be given unless the individual consents,
and if they can’t or won’t consent either a court must consent on their
behalf, or the court appoints an individual as Guardian Advocate who can
consent for medications on behalf of the patient and preferably in
consultation with the patient.

The Guardian Advocate may be a caregiver or family member, but the point is
that that person is legally recognized by the court as having been appointed
to act for that person, so they also have a degree of protection for the
decisions they make.

In the UK on the other hand, it is rarely clear who has the legal right to
consent to medical treatment and similar on behalf of someone else. What is
needed is clear and simple process for determining whether dementia sufferers
are legally competent or to appoint someone to act on their behalf.

m.barnes May 2, 2013 at 11:17

The 2 cases quoted make for a nice rant but not convinced by the
comparison. USA have very different views of what is/ is not applicable in a
court of law to us and each State in turn has it’s own laws.

Re the tagging of Dementia sufferers – I’m okay with this PROVIDING the
person themselves agrees to it and/or the permission of the person they have
given power of attorny to. Not all dementia sufferers go walkabout and surely
the more GPS devices there are the more difficult it will be to track them
quickly. Mass tagging is not a goer. It should also pointed out that the
wearer may take the device off so it’s not exactly fool proof. Giving the
decision making on this to some local council social services admin clerk is
most certainly not acceptable!

Moor
Larkin May 2, 2013 at 11:27

He didn’t like it to start with – it’s the same colour as his fur and he
kept licking it as he thought it was his own body. Still, the battery was
charged, the cat ready so I put some black tape over the GPS receiver and
let him go.

He got stuck heading out of the cat flap as he left due to the tracker
adding an extra 20mm to his height but after trying again he made it
through. After a nervous wait he returned an hour or so later, with the GPS
tracker intact, power light still on.

Eagerly we plugged the tracker in and dumped the data – waypoints
appeared – woohoo!
http://www.nermal.org/blog/tracking-a-cat-with-gps/

Ed P May 2, 2013 at 11:08

As technological advances allow for new applications the usual suspects
come up with new infringements of liberty. However, GPS could be used
beneficially for some: a road mapping and warning system for the totally blind
could be very useful.

rabbitaway May 2, 2013 at 11:06

Crimewatch is one of the few programmes I bother watching these days …..I
noticed the other night how a murderer was found bang to rights by the info
contained in his sat nav ……terrible crime he murdered ex wife in UK, drove her
all the way to Poland in the back of his van, then buried her. There’s no way
they would have found that body w/o that bit of GPS ……!!

Edna Fletcher
May 2, 2013 at 10:49

The fact and truth is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has been acted upon
by the vested interests of health and social services and the limited views of
a unaccountable judiciary, entirely contrary to the spirit in which it was
established to ‘protect’ those lacking capacity, but allowing them voice and
not to be ‘stifled’. The way it has been interpreted has created a group of
non- persons with no legal rights and often precious few civil rights. So the
GPS tagging of dementia patients is just but an extension of the deprivation
of liberties we know is a minefield and contentious. It allows abuse by the
state and families of the rights of dementia patients.

Unless the not yet mentally incapacitated start to write hard hitting
letters to politicians- in the vein that their time is limited in their jobs
and that they will not allow abuses of themselves at times of vulnerability to
be allowed- things will not change.

The problem is Britain, aside from trade unions of old, has no public
activism big enough going to ‘turn the government’, aside from voting apathy.
Interesting in Newsnight last night that the rule of Britain by Etonians is
grating on more than just the plebs.

JoBlow May 2, 2013 at 13:51

Britain has always been in danger of sleep-walking into Facism.

alan scott
May 2, 2013 at 18:23

Do you mean Facebook??

Woodsy42 May 2,
2013 at 10:29

I’m open minded on this. We had one elderly member of the family who, as he
aged, became increasingly confused and on a number of occassions wandered off
and got himself lost, failing to recognise where he was and unable to find his
way home.
Such episodes are distressing for everyone concerned. A GPS seems
like a sensible idea, but only if safeguards ensure it’s only ever used for
the intended purpose and very specifically the law and the authorities are
kept out of it.

Roy Fernley May 2, 2013 at 10:11

This isn’t exactly a new idea. I seem to recall suggestions of GPS trackers
being fitted to specially made footwear and in a walking stick (I can’t
remember now if this was in UK MSM or NZ unfortunately).

It’s not a bad idea in principle. From my time in the Metropolitan Police I
can state with certainty that certain residents of certain homes would go AWOL
on a regular basis, these people were vulnerable and not in full command of
their faculties. Any sensible use of technology to ensure their safety has got
to be a good thing.

However this use should not be indiscriminate. Given that it’s not intended
for use in any criminal investigation I suggest that approval (i.e. a warrant)
issued by a Judge would be overkill. It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to
create an independent review body to oversee the use of GPS trackers in cases
where there is no family to authorise use.

BTW I’m not sure that comparing UK and US procedure is always helpful, it’s
a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

Moor
Larkin May 2, 2013 at 09:29

@ This is not, they stress, the same as tagging criminals, for ‘electronic
tags are worn round the ankle, these devices are worn round the waist or the
neck….’ @

This bit flummoxed me. It seems like mere dancing around a point of
mindless PR.
Rather than write a long screed about the obvious
practicalities, can I have just have mine round the ankle please? It’s a lot
less invasive and if I’ve lost my marbles I won’t be offended if the
neighbours think I’m on an ASBO……

JoBlow May 2, 2013 at 13:50

@ This is not, they stress, the same as tagging criminals, for
‘electronic tags are worn round the ankle, these devices are worn round the
waist or the neck….’ @. really ? sounds just the same.

Ho Hum May 2, 2013 at 08:59

OK, this can be a difficult one to resolve, but aren’t we really protecting
the rights of both groups?

Those, of the many of us who are fortunately compos mentis enough to expect
a degree of privacy and protection without undue interference from anyone
else, and also those of others who might reasonably hope that the rest of us
might just not do nothing to stop them possibly coming to harm, or even dying,
merely because they were at times not compos mentis enough to avoid doing odd
things that might kill them, such as wandering off on a cold dark night

The old bloke next door tries to wander off periodically when off his
medication and so far has been lucky enough to get taken in by neighbours, who
spend the next few hours until his family get back home, trying to explain to
him that, no, they can’t help him get to New Delhi, but one of these days he’s
going to snuff it if he isn’t, or can’t, be found.

And that’s not the same argument as should be applied to children’s tagging
etc. Children are not mentally incapable, but just learning how to exercise
their discernment, as they mature. They need freedom to make mistakes. The
demented need protected against the consequences of their incapacity

Moor
Larkin May 2, 2013 at 09:19

Freedom? Or is it just to save any of the rest of us having to waste TV
time keeping an eye on them?

Ho Hum May 2, 2013 at 09:23

You’re not as stupid as not know it isn’t that simple. So come up with
something better.

Moor Larkin May 2, 2013 at 09:53

If it’s done by consent with the family of the Elder, I’m agreeable
too. They’re not my family.
If the State does it regardless, then I
will say, “Not in my name!”

Jonathan
Mason May 2, 2013 at 15:22

The problem I have with this, having lived for 20 years in the US,
is that who determines which member or members of the family has the
say-so, especially if the whole “family” is not in agreement. Surely
having one person appointed by the court to represent certain
interests of the person with dementia is preferable to leaving it to
“the family” which may represent a variety of opinions. A person in
their 80′s may easily have half a dozen children who all disagree with
each other, and the real and most responsible caregiver may even be a
grandchild.

Let us suppose the elderly person holds the desirable position of
monarch. Who will consent for her, her even more elderly spouse, the
doddering heir presumptive to her position who passionately longs to
see her pushed aside, one of her grandchildren? Who would represent
her best interests? An exceptional case, perhaps, but one can
translate the situation to every family in the realm.

alan scott
May 2, 2013 at 18:22

Spot on!

Moor
Larkin May 2, 2013 at 08:54

Perhaps we should tag the coppers and then we would know where they all
are…………

NoFixedAddress
May 2, 2013 at 09:57

and the politicians…

jaded May 2, 2013 at 22:18

I’m in the canteen quite often if you need me.

jaded May 2, 2013 at 08:48

What if a dementia sufferer isn’t found quickly and dies? Who will take the
blame then? I can’t see this will infringe liberties as the person (or his or
her family) will have to agree to the tagging presumably. A lot of police time
is taken up finding missing persons-remember Teresa Mays soundbite for the
police “your job is to cut crime and nothing else!” …..if only that were
true.

JuliaM May 2, 2013
at 08:47

“No lawyers have been outraged.”

Would I be right in thinking Shami Chukabutty and her fellow travellers
have also been keeping a most uncharacteristic silence?

Moor
Larkin May 2, 2013 at 08:53

Shami is part of the New Order in Policing……
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/there-is-no-room-for-irony-in-hm-police.html?q=irony