http://www.dslreports.com/forum/meh-22445172 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:08:00 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:08:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22470422 said by IanR:

What's weird is that I be;ieve you can use any phone, whether is service or not, to make a 911 call. If that's so why did Verizon try to charge the Police for merely switching the phone on for 5 minutes?
All Cellphones are REQUIRED to be able to call 911 even if they are otherwise disabled. There is no need to activate the phone's account for incoming or outgoing calls just to locate it. Verizon can look up the phone's location so long as it is powered on and get the cell tower it is handshaking with. If needed they can CALL the phone to get the handshake if needed (I do not know if the phone account being deactivated disables the handshake but I doubt it since to make the 911 call you'd need a dial tone and communication with the tower).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22470422 Sat, 30 May 2009 20:23:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22469106
In many places, there still is no "good Samaritan" laws either.. meaning, if you helped someone on the street in need and what you did caused further damage to them, you CAN be sued for it.

It's nice to sit back in an illusion of a perfect society and say nice heart warming things like "$20 in front of a human life" all day long.. but, in reality, it's not so simple as you may want to. I've said it many times, I've given examples, I've even stated potential downfalls, but people like you come back and attack my "specious arguments" as you say.. while you're focused on the $20 over "a life" (talk about drama and a half here) why don't you, and the others that care to attack me, go back and address the very arguments I actually made. Until then, this "perfect harmony word" you all believe we live in is still going to remain anything but!

Again, and until you address the following, anything you say is simply perfect world Utopian at its best.

1) Would you accept warrant-less wire taps? After-all, they are argued to save thousands of lives.. (I don't support them, however, the argument was made AND the supporters of them believe they HAVE saved lives, but others who disagree say they don't becuase there has not been a life lost yet.. how does anyone know that they did in fact work?)

2) Would you accept the fact that while they can turn the phone on to save a life, what's next? .. turn it on becuase you MAY be someone about to hurt / kill someone else and by simply having Verizon or any company turn on a phone account would be beneficial to save the potential loss of life? I don't know about you, but if some law enforcement agency did that to me with out a warrant, I'd be up Johnny Law's ass in a heart beat with a lawyer for trampling my constitutional rights.. you can't simply bend the rules in one case with out allowing it for others.

3) Verizon gave them the location of the phone. Yet, the article still states that it took all the kings horses and all the kings men to find this guy. The story alone stinks and is over exaggerated. Why would they need the phone turned on? Besides, if your telephone was turned off for non-payment, and unless it happened in the last hour or two, which I doubt, do YOU carry a phone with out that is not in service?

4) You're saying that it's Verizon who is at fault here with the who issue.. it was, let me see.. "CORPORATE GREED".. right? It was CG that once again, got in the way between this so-called Good and Evil argument that people here believe exists.

The bottom line, the more and more people like you come in with this Utopian view and argument on how we should simply break rules, policy, procedure, and LAW becuase of someone's JUDGMENT CALL, or LACK OF FOLLOWING THE LAW (and not violating the rights of the very person they wanted the phone turned on of) the more and more I'm standing proud behind Verizon for "doing the right thing"..

Johnny law needs to follow the rules. PERIOD. I would GUARANTEE that you are of the same mentality that stood up after 9/11 and the patriot act stating that we should not give up our freedoms in the name of terrorism. To give up freedoms is to give up liberty.. right? I mean, with the argument you're making now, about Johnny law getting to demand something with out following the very protections we have in place (that the patriot act violated) you're asking them to do now.. So, I can only assume that you MUST support the Patriot act as well, right?

Simply put, you can't have it both ways... not in a society of laws. The MOMENT you cross those lines, you open yourself and the rest of us up to more over reaching powers.

I'm sorry to say this.. but, if the guy died.. oh well! Yup! I said it! OH WELL! We as people are NOT perfect. People die all the time. It's a simple fact of life. Remember our friend Darwin? I like him a lot! The fact remains that we try to legislate perfection. We try to ensure that we can always do the right thing.. that all lives will be saved. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. We try to save lives and we have seat belt laws. (I disagree with them. I am on the camp that believes that seat belts can also KILL you too) We can not ensure every life will be saved.. sorry.. yea, I'm cold hearted.. but, if we didn't have cell phones, this would be a moot point. How else would Johnny law have saved the man that day? .. by doing exactly what they did, as it should be.

If it's ok for them to bend the rules this time, what about next? when does it stop? .. it stops now. I believe in the constitution and it's purpose to limit the hands of the law. WE grant the powers to the government, .. they are not there for them to take. If a life is lost over this.. sorry.

Now, attack away and tell me how horrible a human I am.. becuase if you believe so.. go for it! I'm proud to be who I am!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22469106 Sat, 30 May 2009 14:11:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22462463 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22462463 Fri, 29 May 2009 07:59:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22461879 said by CocoaVanilla:

The sheriff wasn't asking for them to turn it on and keep it on. He wanted it to be turned on for 5 or 10 minutes. Sure, the unconscious guy is going to run up a huge bill in 5 or 10 minutes.
Doesn't matter.. the law isn't above the law. Warrentless wire taps ok? Is it okay for them to use your phone as ANY aid in ANY law enforcement with out a warrent? Lines have to be drawn.. I'm glad Verizon did what they did.. it's not about money. You DO realize that the guy who owned that phone could actually SUE Verizon if they made any change to his account, for what ever reason, later if he decided to, right?

It's not always about the money.. that's a moot argument.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22461879 Fri, 29 May 2009 01:08:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22461872
If you wanted the rules broken here, then maybe warrentless wire taps were a good thing after all, right?? I mean, it was for the best interest of the country, right?

You can't have it both ways.. you have a break down of law and order.. and then the lines of what's right and wrong are blurred. No way.. no thanks..

I also don't want law enforcement thinking that a cell phone is a tracking device. The next time they want to catch a guy for unpaid speeding tickets.. you think they should just call the provider and say "track them.. they're law breakers"...? You're asking the same thing.

It may not have been a great heroic story for Verizon on this one.. but I'm sorry.. the ends don't justify the means..

You guys REALLY, and I'm sorry to say this, REALLY need to take a lesson on civics and society issues. We don't do what "feels" right when it comes to these things.. we do what is right.. and Verizon, as much as I SOOO hate them, I'm standing up for them. The "law" is not above the law. You have NO idea what you're asking for and getting yourself in to.. its very clear.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22461872 Fri, 29 May 2009 01:06:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22452029 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22452029 Wed, 27 May 2009 13:31:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22450339 said by fiberguy:

The way I see it, Verizon didn't apologize nor should they have. The ONLY thing I see that could have been done was that the CSR could have either escalated the call or gave out the number to that hot-line in-case the Sheriff wasn't aware of it, or didn't have the number. (I tend to believe that these law enforcement agencies are aware of how to talk to departments on important matters.. after all they do deal with them all the time)
Maybe some of the bigger departments but a lot of the smaller outfits probably don't call cell phone providers on a daily basis.

The CSR wasn't aware either or just didn't feel like doing anything about it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22450339 Wed, 27 May 2009 08:03:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22450318 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22450318 Wed, 27 May 2009 07:52:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22449417 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22449417 Tue, 26 May 2009 23:30:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22447870 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22447870 Tue, 26 May 2009 18:13:51 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22446516
I suppose that had nothing to do with anything either, right?

The Sheriff calls a customer service line and wants a past due phone turned on? So, if my phone ever gets turned off, I'll just call in to customer service, say I'm the pope, please turn this phone back on becuase it's one of the priests who have lost his way.

As we see, Verizon apologized but also made it clear that the Sheriff didn't go through the proper channels to get done what they needed done.

The way I see it, Verizon didn't apologize nor should they have. The ONLY thing I see that could have been done was that the CSR could have either escalated the call or gave out the number to that hot-line in-case the Sheriff wasn't aware of it, or didn't have the number. (I tend to believe that these law enforcement agencies are aware of how to talk to departments on important matters.. after all they do deal with them all the time)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22446516 Tue, 26 May 2009 14:40:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22445267 --
I support the right to keep and arm bears.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-meh-22445267 Tue, 26 May 2009 11:33:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/meh-22445172 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/meh-22445172 Tue, 26 May 2009 11:20:53 EDT