Why are they bothering with GPS? GPS is littered with problems. It is nothing but political postuing:

http://www.oncefallen.com/GPS.html

* Of course, GPS is not without its limitations and critics. Many of the problems arise from the
  technology itself. Among the common technological problems:

* “Geometric Dilution Of Precision (GDOP), meaning if the angle of the receiver to the satellite
  is too small, the satellite may give a false reading;
* satellite visibility- buildings, metal, and other terrain obscures the signal;
* speed limits- if it is going above a certain speed, it will not work;
* and temperature limits- will not work in extremes of temperature (www.unc.
  edu/~cahoon/problems.html).

* Washington state did a test run with “passive” devices (passive devices merely record where the
  person has been and must be uploaded to read, whereas active devices send out constant signals),
  and found 4000 “notices of violation,” the vast majority of which were false alarms due to technical
  difficulties (Jonathan Martin, “GPS tracking beset by problems of terrain, technology, and time.”
  Seattle Times, Sept. 28th, 2005).
* One senator who voted against the Wisconsin bill stated it would create a “big brother bureaucracy”
  and unnecessary (Steven Waleters et al. “GPS tracking for sex offenders OK’d.” Milwaukee Journal
  Sentinel, April 25th, 2006).
* GPS doesn’t monitor the offender’s actions, just location, and can easily be removed (Associated
  Press, “States Track Sex Offenders by GPS.” July 30th, 2005).
* Most importantly, most states are imposing the devices on all offenders, even low-risk offenders. It
  raises questions on the limits states can invade in the private lives of freed citizens. The batteries
  could fail to be recharged or defective. There is also a question of whether the devices violate the
  fourth amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures (Katherine Mieszkowski, “Tracking
  sex offenders with GPS.” Salon Media Group, Dec. 19th, 2006).

I don’t have problems with the changes as laid out in this article. It appears they want to give the supervising officers the OPTION of changing from active GPS tracking to passive GPS monitoring. That would be after the person had been on active GPS for 12 full months and there had been documented success at that level. This would seem to allow for the officers to take any positive changes in risk or needs into account when planning their supervision strategy. Passive GPS still provides date/time/location, just not in real time but at scheduled intervals of downloading daily. If the supervising officers are reviewing the mapping, they should still be able to see any patterns that would cause concern. Some of the references cited by anonymous are 4 years old, which is ancient history in technology, in my opinion.

The GPS laws cover far too many categories of sex offenders. Regardless of what the media wants you to believe, some of the sex offenders who are required to wear a GPS are not dangerous. There are many flaws with the system. The cost is outrageous. When the GPS has a technical defect, (which happens quite often), the offender is immediately taken off to jail. Imagine the cost that occurs when two police officers are sent to the home, one of them has to drive the offender to jail and then the offender stays in jail until the problem with the GPS is solved. The jails are crowded already.

What happens when the GPS has a technical defect and police show up and the offender ends up in jail and loses his job or this? It’s hard enough for them to get a job and for this to happen beause of a defect, we all have had enough technical defects in our current everyday life . Iseen these offenders lose their jobs with over night stays at jail , for these defects and other issues.