PDA

View Full Version : Legal Feds push for tracking cell phones


wild1
02-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Feds push for tracking cell phones

February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST


Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
..........

The Obama administration is not alone in making this argument. U.S. District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee in New York, wrote in a 2009 opinion that a defendant in a drug trafficking case, Jose Navas, "did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone" location. That's because Navas only used the cell phone "on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York" and "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off."



http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

banyon
02-11-2010, 02:33 PM
Information shared with third parties is rarely seen as private for 4th amendment purposes. The DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Information shared with third parties is rarely seen as private for 4th amendment purposes. The DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

I don't like the smell of this. You get a warrant to tap the cell phone and it's location. I don't think the Fed Gov has any business knowing where people are without some sort of justification.

KC native
02-11-2010, 02:56 PM
Information shared with third parties is rarely seen as private for 4th amendment purposes. The DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

Yes they may be on solid legal ground but this is one area of the law that I feel has completely failed to keep up with the times. I have a major problem with them having the ability to data mine to find whatever they want.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 02:59 PM
Information shared with third parties is rarely seen as private for 4th amendment purposes. The DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

Probably so, but I still don't like it. Not at all.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 02:59 PM
Yes they may be on solid legal ground but this is one area of the law that I feel has completely failed to keep up with the times. I have a major problem with them having the ability to data mine to find whatever they want without a warrant.

FYP

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 03:01 PM
Information shared with third parties is rarely seen as private for 4th amendment purposes. The DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

Except they need a warrant unless there is probable cause.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:02 PM
Yes they may be on solid legal ground but this is one area of the law that I feel has completely failed to keep up with the times. I have a major problem with them having the ability to data mine to find whatever they want.

I am in complete agreement with you on this one.

cookster50
02-11-2010, 03:02 PM
It's PEOPLE. Soylent green is PEOPLE!

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:03 PM
Why does it need to be warrantless again?

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:03 PM
Except they need a warrant unless there is probable cause.

No, they don't. You don't need a warrant for non-private information and it's not considered a search for 4th amendment purposes.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:06 PM
No, they don't. You don't need a warrant for non-private information and it's not considered a search for 4th amendment purposes.

If I'm reading this correctly, they are referring to the physical location of the phone (determined via cell tower location), not the conversation itself, correct?

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:06 PM
Why does it need to be warrantless again?

When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:06 PM
If I'm reading this correctly, they are referring to the physical location of the phone (determined via cell tower location), not the conversation itself, correct?

Yes, that's correct. the conversation requires a warrant.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

Why not get a warrant for the cell phone's associated phone number, and then you can track it on any tower. Treat it like a phone tap.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

Gotcha.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
Yes, that's correct. the conversation requires a warrant.

Gotcha x 2.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
No, they don't. You don't need a warrant for non-private information and it's not considered a search for 4th amendment purposes.

My location is private information. Look...I am all for getting the bad guys, but we can't "gerrymander" what someones personal effects are. I'll take liberty over security every time.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
Jack Bauer does this

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Why not get a warrant for the cell phone's associated phone number, and then you can track it on any tower. Treat it like a phone tap.

I'd imagine that it'd be the ESN. The MDN and MIN aren't really necessary.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

So you would say that the warrant process of actually obtaining one is the problem? This is easily solved and we still have our liberty

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
My location is private information. Look...I am all for getting the bad guys, but we can't "gerrymander" what someones personal effects are. I'll take liberty over security every time.

I don't think your view is unreasonable on this, but for the reasons I've stated, I do disagree.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

Then why not apply for a blanket warrant on the cell phone that would include location? This makes more sense. What you stated seems like they make it hard on themselves then to make it easier for them they want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:11 PM
Why not get a warrant for the cell phone's associated phone number, and then you can track it on any tower. Treat it like a phone tap.

Furhter to my own, I know that the answer you're going to say is something like "the current location of a particular cell phone is not within the expectation of privacy of any individual, including the cell phone's owner."

Further, merely tracking the location does not entail any invasion of privacy with respect to conversations held, etc.

But I still don't like it. Not a damn bit. I'd much rather have it require a warrant. I acknowledge, however, that the precedent is probably on the DOJ's side. Hell, might as well put a bug on every car also, and have the feds be able to monitor anyone' smovement at any time. No invasion of privacy right? :Lin:

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:11 PM
When you are trying to track cell data, you're sometimes doing it to deal with organized crime or terrorist cells. Often times, you want a cell tower location because you're trying to locate an individual. By the time you've applied for a warrant for that cell tower info, they've probably moved out of range anyway.

I have no problems with this

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
Why not get a warrant for the cell phone's associated phone number, and then you can track it on any tower. Treat it like a phone tap.

That might work in some cases, assuming it was info you had ahead of time, but if it's someone you can't locate and are trying to track down, it's pretty unlikely IMO that you are going to have that info well enough in advance.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
I'd imagine that it'd be the ESN. The MDN and MIN aren't really necessary.

Yeah, umm, those are just a bunch of meaningless letters to me. Figured I'd mention it. ;)

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Yeah, umm, those are just a bunch of meaningless letters to me. Figured I'd mention it. ;)

:harumph:

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Also don't alot of the newer phones have GPS on them so they can track 9-1-1 calls?

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
That might work in some cases, assuming it was info you had ahead of time, but if it's someone you can't locate and are trying to track down, it's pretty unlikely IMO that you are going to have that info well enough in advance.

Eh? Isn't there generally an exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment already? I don't do criminal law, and law school was a long time ago, but...

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Furhter to my own, I know that the answer you're going to say is something like "the current location of a particular cell phone is not within the expectation of privacy of any individual, including the cell phone's owner."

Further, merely tracking the location does not entail any invasion of privacy with respect to conversations held, etc.

But I still don't like it. Not a damn bit. I'd much rather have it require a warrant. I acknowledge, however, that the precedent is probably on the DOJ's side. Hell, might as well put a bug on every car also, and have the feds be able to monitor anyone' smovement at any time. No invasion of privacy right? :Lin:

I don't think it would upset me too much if the rule was the other way on this.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
That might work in some cases, assuming it was info you had ahead of time, but if it's someone you can't locate and are trying to track down, it's pretty unlikely IMO that you are going to have that info well enough in advance.

That makes no sense to me. Get a warrant that says you can track the phone and then be done with it. This tower by tower argument or whatever it is seems to be borderline bullshit.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Also don't alot of the newer phones have GPS on them so they can track 9-1-1 calls?

They can track phones without GPS. All it takes is 3 cell phone towers and they can pinpoint where the call came from.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:14 PM
:harumph:

Hey, you know, sorry. I know all the standard ones. LOL, NTTAWWT and PIIHB and the other important ones....










:p

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Also don't alot of the newer phones have GPS on them so they can track 9-1-1 calls?

And AGPS.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:15 PM
They can track phones without GPS. All it takes is 3 cell phone towers and they can pinpoint where the call came from.

Yes, it is called triangulation.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:16 PM
And AGPS.

Yes, a GPS. He already said that. :rolleyes:


















:p :p :p :p

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:17 PM
Eh? Isn't there generally an exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment already? I don't do criminal law, and law school was a long time ago, but...

If there is a likelihood that evidence of a crime will disappear, then yes, but there are plenty of situations where you are trying to locate a person where you aren't even looking for evidence of a crime at the time. Wanting to keep tabs on a terror cell leader's whereabouts, for example, even if he is not yet known to have perpetrated a crime.

Another situation I can think of would be for people in distress who are trying to be located, that wouldn't even involve criminal considerations necessarily.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:19 PM
They can track phones without GPS. All it takes is 3 cell phone towers and they can pinpoint where the call came from.

thanks

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:19 PM
If there is a likelihood that evidence of a crime will disappear, then yes, but there are plenty of situations where you are trying to locate a person where you aren't even looking for evidence of a crime at the time. Wanting to keep tabs on a terror cell leader's whereabouts, for example, even if he is not yet known to have perpetrated a crime.

Yeah...then why can't you get a warrant?

Another situation I can think of would be for people in distress who are trying to be located, that wouldn't even involve criminal considerations necessarily.

Then that would probably qualify as exigent, no? I'd rather broaden the exigent circumstances exception than just award carte blanche.

Chocolate Hog
02-11-2010, 03:20 PM
This will keep us safe.

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:22 PM
You know, just on a coincidental note, we have been dealing with warrants on cell phone information with Verizon and T-Mobile.

I have chewed their a**es, but it has taken them a month to comply and their only response was "we've been a little backed up over the holidays".

I think these phone companies either intentionally or negligently understaff the portions of their offices who comply with such requests either because it doesn't enhance their bottom line or to frustrate people into not bothering to request anything.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:23 PM
If there is a likelihood that evidence of a crime will disappear, then yes, but there are plenty of situations where you are trying to locate a person where you aren't even looking for evidence of a crime at the time. Wanting to keep tabs on a terror cell leader's whereabouts, for example, even if he is not yet known to have perpetrated a crime.

Another situation I can think of would be for people in distress who are trying to be located, that wouldn't even involve criminal considerations necessarily.

but there are plenty of situations where you are trying to locate a person where you aren't even looking for evidence of a crime at the time. Wanting to keep tabs on a terror cell leader's whereabouts, for example, even if he is not yet known to have perpetrated a crime.

All the more reason for a warrant. Just get a warrant that says you can track his phone's location and conversationa and be done with it. Otherwise anyone can suddenly become a "terror cell leader" if the Feds want them too.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:25 PM
You know, just on a coincidental note, we have been dealing with warrants on cell phone information with Verizon and T-Mobile.

I have chewed their a**es, but it has taken them a month to comply and their only response was "we've been a little backed up over the holidays".

I think these phone companies either intentionally or negligently understaff the portions of their offices who comply with such requests either because it doesn't enhance their bottom line or to frustrate people into not bothering to request anything.

Can't you drag them before the judge and get them to face the music, and a possible contempt order.

Doesn't the order specify the date by which the phone company must comply?

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:26 PM
Can't you drag them before the judge and get them to face the music, and a possible contempt order.

Doesn't the order specify the date by which the phone company must comply?

On what legal grounds? If there is no warrant WTF should a company give anyone THEIR information? It is not public information. It is proprietary to the company.


Edit: I misread, you were talking about in the case of a warrant, I think.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:28 PM
Seems to me not having to make the Feds get a warrant leads to FBI resources being spent on tracking down some FBI guys' ex-wife's boyfriends. :shrug:

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 05:39 PM
The way I see it ,

1) We now live in a different world whether you like it or not. the terrorists have succeded in changing our way of life.

2) Cell phone as well as e-mail correspondence survelliance has saved us from many terrorist attacks already.

3) If you don't have anything to hide, in light of current events, it shouldn't matter.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 05:48 PM
almost all phones have gps. Again, there is no privacy wth cell phones. "they" can know where you are at any time they chose to locate you.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 06:49 PM
I'm with banyon on this.

Norman Einstein
02-11-2010, 07:21 PM
I see amendments coming, either to the 4th Amendment or to the Patriot Act.ROFL

memyselfI
02-11-2010, 07:24 PM
The way I see it ,

1) We now live in a different world whether you like it or not. the terrorists have succeded in changing our way of life.

2) Cell phone as well as e-mail correspondence survelliance has saved us from many terrorist attacks already.

3) If you don't have anything to hide, in light of current events, it shouldn't matter.

Sept. 12, 2001 I posted that we had more to fear from our government than we did the terrorists. I was roundly skewered. My point was they were in a position to control us moreso than terrorists.

NewChief
02-11-2010, 07:26 PM
Kneejerk reaction.

Fuck you fascists.

That being said, I'll have to actually start figuring out exactly what's going on here before that becomes a deep seated belief.

memyselfI
02-11-2010, 07:28 PM
Furhter to my own, I know that the answer you're going to say is something like "the current location of a particular cell phone is not within the expectation of privacy of any individual, including the cell phone's owner."

Further, merely tracking the location does not entail any invasion of privacy with respect to conversations held, etc.

But I still don't like it. Not a damn bit. I'd much rather have it require a warrant. I acknowledge, however, that the precedent is probably on the DOJ's side. Hell, might as well put a bug on every car also, and have the feds be able to monitor anyone' smovement at any time. No invasion of privacy right? :Lin:

I'm betting this isn't too far off in the future. OnStar will probably end up being a CIA/FBI project.

banyon
02-11-2010, 07:48 PM
Can't you drag them before the judge and get them to face the music, and a possible contempt order.

Doesn't the order specify the date by which the phone company must comply?

I threatened to today and they finally got it to us. And no, the warrants don't have a "produce by" date.

banyon
02-11-2010, 07:50 PM
All the more reason for a warrant. Just get a warrant that says you can track his phone's location and conversationa and be done with it. Otherwise anyone can suddenly become a "terror cell leader" if the Feds want them too.

You can't get a warrant in that situation because you don't have any evidence of a crime to search for.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:25 PM
I'm with banyon on this.

you're so begging for a neg rep...:evil:

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:27 PM
You can't get a warrant in that situation because you don't have any evidence of a crime to search for.

This makes no sense then. If you have no evidence then how the hell do you know who to follow? Again, as I said earlier, what is to stop the abuse of this? This seems the Feds can deem anyone a threat at anytime and start following them via their cell. Somehow that makes no sense to me.

Norman Einstein
02-12-2010, 03:40 AM
You can't get a warrant in that situation because you don't have any evidence of a crime to search for.

It's possible that you will be able to at some point in the future. Were you one of the people that were totally against the patriot act? One of the provisions of the p.a. was to tap the incoming calls from known terrorists to anyone in the U.S. if I remember correctly, and that was without a warrant. There seemed to be some heated discussion over that a while back. What would make it OK to determine that Mr. Banyon is a possible problem for anyone and start tagging his cell phone locations and possibly recored all of his calls to determine if their silly wild ass guess was something they could prove? After all you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your cell phone. How is a cell phone different than your house phone?

Where would the line be drawn? It seems to be very open at the moment, the gov can screw the people once again and with the Presidents blessings.

Amnorix
02-12-2010, 06:37 AM
I threatened to today and they finally got it to us. And no, the warrants don't have a "produce by" date.

Next time you go before a judge with a warrant relating to these cell phone companies, I'd suggest trying to include it in the order, and specifically explain the absurd delay you had to deal with this time as justification for giving them -- whatever -- five business days to comply.

So long as it's a reasonable period of time, of course, for them to do whatever it is you need them to do.

I don't know if you've ever worked in the commercial world and with commercial lawyers, but there's one simple rule of thumb for 95% of them, it's "wait until the last minute". It's a function of human nature plus ingrained culture.

If you give them a deadline -- even a longer one than you might think necessary -- then they mark it on their calendar and they get it done. Might be better to give them 30 days in the order (waaaay more htan they need, hypothetically) than start calling after 10 days and still be calling after 60 and threatening sanctions.

Amnorix
02-12-2010, 06:41 AM
One further thought -- if the warrant is on a standard form that doesn't / can't include a "produce by" date, then the next time you are dealing with these same companies send a letter immediately after they are served with a warrant with some detail as to the unreasonable delay the last time, informing them that you expect production within X days, and if they fail to produce then you expect to be before the Court in X + 1 days explaining to the judge that they seem to have a consistent pattern of ignoring warrants until threatened with civil contempt orders, etc.

In other words, YOU give them the deadline, and back it with a serious enough negative consequence for them to mark it on their calendar and get it done.

Of course, these ideas may be completely impractical for 20 reasons I don't understand, but maybe one of these thoughts will help.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 06:59 AM
This makes no sense then. If you have no evidence then how the hell do you know who to follow? Again, as I said earlier, what is to stop the abuse of this? This seems the Feds can deem anyone a threat at anytime and start following them via their cell. Somehow that makes no sense to me.You worked at Sprint. You know that law enforcement can track anyone at any time. Privacy on a cell phone is an illusion.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 07:25 AM
You worked at Sprint. You know that law enforcement can track anyone at any time. Privacy on a cell phone is an illusion.

Horse shit. When law enforcment wanted to track a phone they had to fill out all kinds of forms and what not. They could not simply call Sprint and say, "track this phone". It doesn't work that way.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:58 AM
Horse shit. When law enforcment wanted to track a phone they had to fill out all kinds of forms and what not. They could not simply call Sprint and say, "track this phone". It doesn't work that way.yeah sure, thats the "official" way. I know better.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 07:59 AM
yeah sure, thats the "official" way. I know better.

:spock:

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:01 AM
:spock:Here's something that public knowledge now.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/whistleblower-f/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a/

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:10 AM
Here's something that public knowledge now.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/whistleblower-f/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a/

:spock:


"What I thought was alarming is how this carrier ended up essentially allowing a third party outside their organization to have unfettered access to their environment,"

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/whistleblower-f/#ixzz0fKoHxqh3

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:16 AM
:spock:As I said your privacy is an illusion. Get use to it or stop using cell phones.

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:17 AM
Next time you go before a judge with a warrant relating to these cell phone companies, I'd suggest trying to include it in the order, and specifically explain the absurd delay you had to deal with this time as justification for giving them -- whatever -- five business days to comply.

So long as it's a reasonable period of time, of course, for them to do whatever it is you need them to do.

I don't know if you've ever worked in the commercial world and with commercial lawyers, but there's one simple rule of thumb for 95% of them, it's "wait until the last minute". It's a function of human nature plus ingrained culture.

If you give them a deadline -- even a longer one than you might think necessary -- then they mark it on their calendar and they get it done. Might be better to give them 30 days in the order (waaaay more htan they need, hypothetically) than start calling after 10 days and still be calling after 60 and threatening sanctions.

I might try that. Good suggestion.

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:19 AM
This makes no sense then. If you have no evidence then how the hell do you know who to follow? Again, as I said earlier, what is to stop the abuse of this? This seems the Feds can deem anyone a threat at anytime and start following them via their cell. Somehow that makes no sense to me.

What? You think we can't know who terror cell leaders are without knowing what the current crime is they are plotting to perpetrate?

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:20 AM
It's possible that you will be able to at some point in the future. Were you one of the people that were totally against the patriot act? One of the provisions of the p.a. was to tap the incoming calls from known terrorists to anyone in the U.S. if I remember correctly, and that was without a warrant. There seemed to be some heated discussion over that a while back. What would make it OK to determine that Mr. Banyon is a possible problem for anyone and start tagging his cell phone locations and possibly recored all of his calls to determine if their silly wild ass guess was something they could prove? After all you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your cell phone. How is a cell phone different than your house phone?

Where would the line be drawn? It seems to be very open at the moment, the gov can screw the people once again and with the Presidents blessings.

We're not talking about the contents of the conversations here.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:20 AM
What? You think we can't know who terror cell leaders are without knowing what the current crime is they are plotting to perpetrate?

So if you know who they are then get a warrant to track them. You seem to be playing this game of on one hand we don't know anything but on the other hand we do.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:20 AM
As I said your privacy is an illusion. Get use to it or stop using cell phones.

STFU

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:24 AM
So if you know who they are then get a warrant to track them. You seem to be playing this game of on one hand we don't know anything but on the other hand we do.

You seem not to understand that the 4th amendment requires that you are looking for evidence of a specific crime. That requirement is not a game.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:27 AM
You seem not to understand that the 4th amendment requires that you are looking for evidence of a specific crime. That requirement is not a game.

Well, you just hit on why I have a problem with this.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:28 AM
STFUjust embrace the horror. :p

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:29 AM
just embrace the horror. :p

STFU

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:31 AM
Well, you just hit on why I have a problem with this.

Great. Well I expect you to be at the front of the line then when a terrorist's case is dismissed because his privacy rights were violated when government found him with a cell tower.

mcan
02-12-2010, 08:35 AM
The FBI would be better at it's job if it has the legal authority to track all of our cell phones... This will keep us all safer the long run. Therefore we should give the FBI the legal authority to do this.



This is a HORRIBLE argument.



Just imagine all of the outlandish things that could be put in that blank instead, and would give the FBI a "better" ability to do their job of finding bank robbers, etc... They could put little tracking sensors in all of our legs that were assigned by social security number. Imagine how much better they would be then! Or better they could put little microphones in them too! Then they could ALWAYS know where we were and what we were saying.



Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against the premise of the original argument. Any idiot can see that destroying privacy laws, or seriously infringing on them would give authorities a leg up against crime. But, privacy laws weren't set up as a means to protect or aid law enforcement. They were set as a means for US, the general public to be actually free to do and say as we wish within the context of law without fear of being subject to the whims and persecutions of an intrusive government. We have authorities and municipalities to help protect us and make our society function better, but they have rules they must adhere to. The price we pay for privacy is that a few criminals will get away.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:38 AM
Great. Well I expect you to be at the front of the line then when a terrorist's case is dismissed because his privacy rights were violated when government found him with a cell tower.

I think you are missing my point but oh well.

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:42 AM
I think you are missing my point but oh well.

Like I said pete, I want you front of the line next time a terrorist's rights are violated.

When you institute a rule that covers everyone, you have to consider both the good and the bad, you can't just ignore the inconvenient outcomes.

Norman Einstein
02-12-2010, 08:43 AM
We're not talking about the contents of the conversations here.

At the moment. This is one of those situations that will get out of hand and we will be in the world of "big brother" if we are not already on the doorstep.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:45 AM
Like I said pete, I want you front of the line next time a terrorist's rights are violated.

When you institute a rule that covers everyone, you have to consider both the good and the bad, you can't just ignore the inconvenient outcomes.

JFC, that is not what I am saying and you know it.

HonestChieffan
02-12-2010, 08:49 AM
Im way more paranoid over some muslim terrorist blowing Americans into bits than I am paranoid that the FBI may find out I drive to my pasture and lots of time talk to buddies about crops and cattle prices on my cell phone or find out who will bring ice or beer when we play pitch.

Im on the side of taking out killers, radical kooks, and terrorists.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:50 AM
Day 2. I'm still with banyon.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:51 AM
Day 2. I'm still with banyon.

well,t hat's failry hypocritical of you since this means you are supporting the Feds being able to deem anyone at anytime a threat without showing any cause.


Papers please?