 | | Isn't this the same stuff the Dems were yelling at Bush about?
Why do a 180 as soon as you get in? Makes you wonder what they aren't exactly telling you.... | |
|
 | TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Re: Isn't this the same stuff It was easy to "blame Bush" for everything when the Dems had no responsibilities for trying to catch the bad guys. Now that they have complete control, THEY are the ones that have to try and catch the baddies.
Anyone who actually believed there would be "change" in this area was deluding themselves. | |
|
| |  doc69Premium
join:2004-08-01
 ·Insight Communic..
| Re: Isn't this the same stuff said by TheGhost:It was easy to "blame Bush" for everything when the Dems had no responsibilities for trying to catch the bad guys. Now that they have complete control, THEY are the ones that have to try and catch the baddies. Anyone who actually believed there would be "change" in this area was deluding themselves. I still can't believe that people think there are such things as democrats or republicans? I call myself a democrat but its a name. As far as bush & cheney is concerned, they the biggest piece's of shit to ever hold an office in the history of this country. As far as the government is concerned they are going to do what ever they feel like. I wish there was a way to stop them but there is not, and don't say vote because they are all the same assholes no matter what "SIDE" they say they are on. I'm just curious on why they became so powerful? Is it that people in this country are so lazy that they want somebody else to do their thinking for them? I don't know but this country is going to shit and we are just standing by & letting them do it. They give are jobs away to other country for their own agenda and we stand by. Foreigners that are coming into this country have more rights than the citizens do now a days, but we stand by. Well i guess everybody has their two cents so there's mine. Agree or don't agree it's up to you but hurry up before that is gone to.
--
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE." | |
|
| | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Isn't this the same stuff said by doc69:As far as bush & cheney is concerned, they the biggest piece's of shit to ever hold an office in the history of this country. Except for:
Andrew Jackson.
Ulysses S. Grant.
Howard Taft.
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Richard M. Nixon.
Ronald Reagan.
And all the rest.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Isn't this the same stuff Reagan doesn't belong in that list. You should replace him with Carter. | |
|
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Isn't this the same stuff I wonder what part of "all the rest" doesn't include Carter? The list is only partly serious; it is also partly sarcastic hyperbole. It was supposed to be politically agnostic, and include somebody hated by one extreme of the political spectrum, or another.
FDR was just about the last Democratic "Messiah" this nation had, for president, until the "Advent" of BO.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Isn't this the same stuff FDR actually did stuff though. | |
|
| | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Isn't this the same stuff They all "did stuff". The question is, did they do the right stuff, the wrong stuff, or stuff that was good in their time, but not in our time.
Andrew Jackson is remembered as a "Federalist", who did things to concentrate power at the Federal level. He would have supported Abraham Lincoln's bid to "preserver the Union". We rarely remember the "wrong stuff" that he did. The Cherokee do, though.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by Uncle Paul:the Dems were yelling at Bush about? Why do a 180 as soon as you get in? Makes you wonder what they aren't exactly telling you.... Yes, and it just shows how exactly the same there are as the republicans. | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by Uncle Paul:the Dems were yelling at Bush about? Why do a 180 as soon as you get in? Makes you wonder what they aren't exactly telling you.... When you are out of power you complain and campaign on how you will change things. When you are finally in power, you blame your predecessor and change nothing.
There is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans any longer. They each have their "wing nuts" that they are beholden to but they are all politicians at heart looking out for their own self-interest and nothing else.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | This goverment will do whatever it likes to us whether we want it or not.I for one am getting real sick of goverments. | |
|
| | | | Re: Isn't this the same stuff said by gorehound:This goverment will do whatever it likes to us whether we want it or not.I for one am getting real sick of goverments. do not goto south carolina ...you subversive LOL | |
|
| | | said by Uncle Paul:the Dems were yelling at Bush about? Why do a 180 as soon as you get in? Makes you wonder what they aren't exactly telling you.... in 20 years its the same
what will really scare them is when we all get quiet about it.
"they say the quiet ones change the universe" | |
|
| NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Uncle Paul:the Dems were yelling at Bush about? Why do a 180 as soon as you get in? Makes you wonder what they aren't exactly telling you.... "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
Or something like that from "The Who". ("Won't Get Fooled Again"?) But we always do.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  I Agree
Hopefully a judge (or the supreme court?) will agree that privacy under the fourth amendment extends to private companies as well. | |
|
|  drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6
·wavebroadband
| Re: I Agree When business and government are so closely intertwined, "not partaking in that business' service" is not really an option. It's either subject yourself to it or do without.
I'm not a huge privacy guy, but how exactly is this different from warrantless wiretapping?
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2 | |
|
| | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I Agree said by drew:When business and government are so closely intertwined, "not partaking in that business' service" is not really an option. It's either subject yourself to it or do without. I'm not a huge privacy guy, but how exactly is this different from warrantless wiretapping? I agree that business and government are in bed together. And they aren't even faithful to one another at that, but the amendment is pretty clear and this type of thing has even been upheld by the supreme court.
This is providing the location of a cell phone at a certain time, not what was said on the call. Just that Cell Phone 123456 was communicating with Cell Phone Tower XYZ at 23:43 on 2/10/2010. | |
|
| | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: I Agree Can you obtain land line phone records without a warrant? | |
|
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I Agree said by drew:Can you obtain land line phone records without a warrant? Yep, you provide it to 911 every time you call. | |
|
| | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: I Agree Every time I call 911 I am providing them with my phone records for the past X amount of seconds, minutes, days, etc. ? | |
|
| | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I Agree said by drew:Every time I call 911 I am providing them with my phone records for the past X amount of seconds, minutes, days, etc. ? No, but you are providing them with the exact same amount of information this article references, your location. The difference is that a landline doesn't move and has a fixed address.
This article is not about providing call records. It's simply about providing the location of where the mobile phone placed calls. Not where they placed them, or to whom, or for how long, etc. | |
|
| | | | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·wavebroadband
| Re: I Agree I can turn off 911 location services if I wish, regardless of carrier. It is also very publicly known that 911 gathers this information.
Do you think our friendly carriers would announce they share this info with the government or would they stick it in the fine print?
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I Agree said by drew:I can turn off 911 location services if I wish, regardless of carrier. It is also very publicly known that 911 gathers this information. Do you think our friendly carriers would announce they share this info with the government or would they stick it in the fine print? I missed this somehow?
Anyway, I doubt they'd even stick it in the fine print, as there is no legal prescedent requiring them to and I doubt very much either the government nor the cell phone companies would want this out there as public knowledge.
However, that still doesn't change the fact that the EFF is arguing that this is illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which it is clearly not. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·wavebroadband
| Re: I Agree I'd make the argument it is because I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that someone I do business won't report my whereabouts any time a cop asks without probable cause and a warrant.
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I Agree said by drew:I'd make the argument it is because I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that someone I do business won't report my whereabouts any time a cop asks without probable cause and a warrant. My reasonable expectation would be that they not provide it to anyone BUT law enforcement, as law enforcement has been tasked with solving crimes and catching the bad guys.
I'd be all up in arms if I could call AT&T and get your iPhone location as someone not associated with law enforcement, however.
I think our views on this are why this issue is so heated, it's all about how an individual defines and views their expectation of privacy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: I Agree Law enforcement needs a reason. That reason needs to be validated. Checks and balances my friend. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: I Agree said by drew:Law enforcement needs a reason. That reason needs to be validated. Checks and balances my friend. That's not quite true. Law enforcement needs a reason to gather evidence for criminal prosecution. The 4th amendment holds zero civil protection. What this means is that law enforcement can engage in search and seizure without reason, but that evidence obtained from such a search and seizure is not admissible; but evidence stemming from that search may be admissible (the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has a fairly limited scope).
Basically, location could be used as an investigative tool without warrant and not come across the 4th amendment simply by not using location in prosecution. Instead, location is used to narrow suspects and then a case is built separate from the location information.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | | | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·wavebroadband
| Re: I Agree So you could investigate who I call and then gather other information based on that and discard the evidence I called them?
They got started from information that should be private.
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: I Agree said by drew:So you could investigate who I call and then gather other information based on that and discard the evidence I called them? They got started from information that should be private. Yep, law enforcement can start an investigation from 4th amendment protected information. Read up on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, it explains what evidence stemming from an illegal search and seizure is excluded and what is allowable.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by drew:They got started from information that should be private. The idea is, you voluntarily involved a third party in information you felt was private.
Your only recourse is a civil suit with that third party based upon breach of contract (assuming you had a contract that the third party wouldn't disclose your information).
The information (or relationship) may be so unique (or ubiquitous) that it justifies congress legislating your protection. That's how the existing law (against telcos releasing customer information) came into being.
So, the only question is whether location information is similar (in spirit) to what Congress protected, or requires legislation of its own.
I think it's similar. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're in a voluntary relationship with a third party. If they release information about you, you don't have a 4th amendment claim.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: I Agree I think it needs to get legislated -- just as the current rules are. | |
|
| | | | | | | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
1 edit | said by drew:I can turn off 911 location services if I wish, regardless of carrier. It is also very publicly known that 911 gathers this information. No, you can't turn off landline 911 location services. 911 location services are always "on" for your landline (more specifically, 911 has records of the location of your landline and can override any number privacy).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
·DSL EXTREME
| said by Matt:said by drew:Can you obtain land line phone records without a warrant? Yep, you provide it to 911 every time you call. Somehow, I doubt that all calls made on a land line are to 911. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 13 replies to this post |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by drew:When business and government are so closely intertwined, "not partaking in that business' service" is not really an option. It's either subject yourself to it or do without. I'm not a huge privacy guy, but how exactly is this different from warrantless wiretapping? They aren't wiretapping you. They are just getting locations of WHERE you made your calls. To listen in they need a warrant. | |
|
| | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·wavebroadband
| Re: I Agree I was corrected about what exactly they were disclosing after I made that post.
Why don't you think they need a warrant to find out where you placed that call at?
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2 | |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I Agree said by drew:I was corrected about what exactly they were disclosing after I made that post. Why don't you think they need a warrant to find out where you placed that call at? Because the lower courts have said they don't have to. This is the 1st appeal to a federal court on the 4th amendment rights on this issue. Who knows how the court will rule. | |
|
| | | | | drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: I Agree Your opinion on something matches entirely with what a court finds? | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Matt:The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures by the government, but a private company is free to turn over whatever they want to whomever they want. Hopefully a judge (or the supreme court?) will agree that privacy under the fourth amendment extends to private companies as well. I agree. This is the same situation which caused Congress to specifically legislate that telcos cannot release customer information except under well-defined circumstances (warrant, certification no warrant necessary, good-faith belief danger exists).
The question is whether the Court will view GPS/location information similar in nature to what Congress has already legislated on, or require Congress to specifically legislate on it.
Mark | |
|
| |
See 35 replies to this post |
|
| | | said by Matt:I would agree. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures by the government, but a private company is free to turn over whatever they want to whomever they want. If you don't like that policy, you're free to take your business elsewhere. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Hopefully a judge (or the supreme court?) will agree that privacy under the fourth amendment extends to private companies as well. aitn gonna happen then your system would beocme fair and equatable and just ...NOT greedy subversive of rights and pandering to a rich minority.
SO relax take one of my pills for pain and get over it. never gonna "change" | |
|
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
1 edit | If you can't beat them then join em Well if you have friends in high places you can save your pennies and try to have them order a gsm/cdma intercept device,that's how they snag your calls.
just one of many you can find them for around 15-20 grand from Israel but again you need someone in high places »www.spyworld.com/Cellular_Interceptor.htm | |
|
| | GSM encryption Ok - calling location is one thing but what about call content?
1) All GSM calls are encrypted.
2) It was a selling point to GSM customers
3) GSM call encryption has recently been broken, but the ITU is looking to drop in an upgraded encryption algorithm.
4) 99.99+% of all GSM users have no idea that the encryption is broken at present, hence they still have the same *expectation* of privacy of the content of their calls.
Where to next? | |
|
|  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: GSM encryption said by MaynardKrebs:4) 99.99+% of all GSM users have no idea that the encryption is broken at present, hence they still have the same *expectation* of privacy of the content of their calls. Where to next? Since you made up a statistic, so will I.
99.99+% of all GSM users had no idea that their GSM calls were encrypted in the first place, hence they had no more expectation of privacy than their CDMA or IDEN brethren. I'd even go so far as to say that 95% of them didn't know they had a GSM phone... | |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | privacy you has none. | |
|
| | Still a bad idea All this is going to do is get people to stop buying phones with GPS in them. And if all phones have GPS then a budding criminal just wont carry a mobile phone anymore.
All this will really achieve in the end is it will violate non-criminals civil rights. I doubt that doing this will gain the US Intelligence Agencies any added data points for real issues like terrorism. | |
|
| | | Re: Still a bad idea said by axiomatic:All this is going to do is get people to stop buying phones with GPS in them. And if all phones have GPS then a budding criminal just wont carry a mobile phone anymore. Mod your phone's GPS unit to always send out the following co-ordinates - Lat.: 39.071389 N, Long.: 76.699722 W
»maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=39.07···645&z=17 | |
|
| | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Still a bad idea That would be a little difficult, since the phone sends back ephermis data too. (And you'd still have triangulation to deal with.) | |
|
| |  cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN | That's pretty funny. Savage Rd, Ft. Meade, Maryland. My dad was in the army, and I lived about 2 miles from that place when I was a kid. | |
|
| | where the DOJ fails "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"
problem here is that you and the telco often enter into an arrangement called a contract to prevent your privacy from falling into wrong hands , as you have no choice but to accept terms of service as the competition does same thing your rights get invalidated , i would argue that some challenges need to be made at the telco level as well about those ToS. ONE thing is that you cant break laws JUST by signing a contract and taking rights from a contract. at least that how it works in Canada.
an extreme way to see this is i contract you to kill that guy sitting next to you. thats illegal YOU CANT DO THAT.
so why are you taking my privacy and rights that go with it away? oh cause no one has died i see.....
its also why it could very well be a lot of these ToS and contracts are in fact illegal to begin with. IF i buy a router and a modem and have the phone line already there all a isp need do is activate the account (mostly) so why do they have early termination and why are they not penalized for breaches of contracts themselves.
YUP sue them poor people that can't afford it.... | |
|
| | Here's the problem.... With more and more people using cell phones for their primary phones, this privacy thing is a MAJOR concern! Cell phones should have the same privacy requirements that corded ones have. | |
|
| NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Here's the problem.... said by qworster:With more and more people using cell phones for their primary phones, this privacy thing is a MAJOR concern! Cell phones should have the same privacy requirements that corded ones have. Tell that to the old Soviet Navy. I was a combat communications specialist in the California Army National Guard. I know that every time we keyed the transmitter on the old AN/VRC-12 family radios, their "fishing" fleet, just outside the national limit of the Pacific Coast, was listening in on us.
For location reference:
Your landline is tied to a physical location, which is available through a reverse directory.
For content:
Your cell phone is broadcasting. Unless you encrypt your conversation, you can't really expect the same quality of privacy as your landline affords. It is a matter of what is technically feasible.
We can legislate "privacy" in this matter, but will such legislation really matter in the end? The government is pretty good at finding "end runs" around such impediments.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| here we go And this is exactly the kind of thing that was considered "nuts" a few years ago...
Considering that this has been going on for years anyway, I'm not surprised though.
Now we have public admission, desire to use it, and people posting here with comments to the effect of unwavering support for such a notion. Comments replete with thinly veiled disdain for those who would rather their movements not be tracked.
I ask anyone who supports this, why even bother with trying to convince people who disagree that there is something "good" about such a thing?
What motivates a person to desire such a "1984" style of society?
Also, who will watch the watcher(s)? | |
|
|  ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | Re: here we go That sounds like a line out of Enemy Of The State..."who will monitor the monitors...?" | |
|
| | |
 dsldude08Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2 | The problem here is... the private companies can do whatever they want with your information under existing privacy laws that apply to them, BUT, the government obtaining that information and using it IS IN FACT against 4th Amendment rights, because they are illegally using your information without your consent, regardless of how they obtained that information. That is why we have warrants which were created as a way to legally obtain private information about an individual for criminal or in some situations civil cases. The Constitution applies only to government-related individuals/issues, not private issues, but when the government goes through a private company to obtain information, it's still involving the government, and therefore ILLEGAL on the government's part and in direct violation of the Constitution. Any reasonable person would realize this and it wouldn't fly if a jury were to take such a case.
It's a fine line to be walking, but the DOJ is WRONG and attempting to alter the law yet again as they did with warrantless wiretapping. The funny thing is, the 4th Amendment still exists, the Constitution still exists, and therefore we have conflicting laws on the books, so you can go with a timeline to determine which law overrides the other, the Constitution and 4th Amendment were on the books first, therefore they trump any of these other laws that were created and while the original laws were kept in place, that's how that works. The government continues to violate their own laws that have been created over the years, and nobody is doing anything about it. Civil Rights Groups won't do jack for anyone in the end, you watch (it's happened before). | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| No different than having cameras on every corner The same argument applies for and against.
I don't see this the same as wiretapping as they aren't getting information from within the call, just where everyone is.
I think there can be a sensible compromise. The FBI can get the records of from particular locations but the information should not be personally identifiable.
Once they have a device or devices that fits the pattern, it would just be say "Device 1234". They take this information to a judge and say we want a warrant to obtain the identity of the person who owns "Device 1234". The judge then looks at the evidence and makes the call. If the list doesn't make sense to the judge he/she could deny the warrant. But if it does make sense the FBI gets the names and can proceed to the next step of the investigation.
But the FBI should not be able to get whatever personally identifiable information whenever they want. | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| It all depends. I believe an unencrypted signal should be fair game to monitor, as long as it travels into a public (or your private) space.
If someone has encrypted their wireless AP, I believe a warrant should be necessary for law enforcement to monitor it.
To the best of my knowledge, cellular signals have been encrypted since the late '80s or so. At least, that's when my Bearcat scanner stopped picking up voice calls. I don't know cellular technology well enough to make the point better than that - perhaps someone could fill in the gaps.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. | |
|
| | The real question is why? Why does the government need this data? To 'protect' us from the terrorists? I don't buy that. Look at it this way, when the only tool you have is a hammer, most objects look like a nail to you. When the government has the ability to see where, when, how long you were on the phone, then logically, they will conclude you are a terrorist. What if your spouse is suing you? Do you honestly believe that if the information IS available, the opposing attorney won't subpoena that information? It already happens when the get the information from the 'fast pass' electronic tolls. Sure, when you signed up, they stated they would never use the information in that manner, unless, of course, the government decides it wants to use it.
Does the government have the right to know when I cross state lines? Absolutely not. Do they know? Sure, they have camera's at every toll booth which record my license plate. I avoid that by taking non-toll roads, but the trip takes me longer. The problem with america today is that todays kids, have ZERO concept of the idea of privacy. I refuse to use facebook or myspace or whatnot, because I value my privacy. We have raised a generation of kids who are perfect little consumer drones because they are too stupid to realize that they should have a RIGHT to privacy, and until they get older and realize the benefits, by then it will be too late.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: The real question is why? Like I said in another thread, if the Government got warrants from judicial authority, I wouldn't have a HUGE problem with them getting info from people.
But this broad, over-reaching "I want to see everything with little to not oversight" scares me to death
And I have nothing to be scared about.....I dont commit crimes or anything....but just the thought of people listening in all they want is downright creepy | |
|
| marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by karlmarx:Sure, they have camera's at every toll booth which record my license plate. I avoid that by taking non-toll roads, but the trip takes me longer. Do you make sure to plot out satellite swaths so you can avoid routes with passing satellites? Do you avoid aerial flight paths to make sure that you are not caught in a orthophotography flight too? Do you make sure there are no traffic cameras, news copters, or streaming webcams pointed at the roads you are taking too? Do you pass on the right just in case the driver you are passing is recording you with a cell phone camera?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN Reviews:
 ·CDE
| A quick thought I'm not really a religious person. I have done some studies of what some 'Christian' folks call 'end times prophecy'. With all the technological advances we've made as people in the last 30 years, it seems to me some of what is mentioned in Revelation could become possible. (See Revelation chapter 13)
The odd thing to me is no one in their right mind would accept some kind of marking, rfid chip, or some other some such, to be inserted into their body under today's circumstances. However, I feel the government, or some other entity will try to 'guilt-trip' people into accepting new, untested, and potentially dangerous technologies.
»www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-F···sNum=104
»www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ART···ID=38038
»edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/05/···jabeach/
We will hear things like this:
Well if there is no money to steal, robberies will go down.
Don't you want your children to be safe?
And the very clever, we need to stop terrorists! (I don't want to be a jerk here, but corrupt governments have killed more people, than all the terrorists combined throughout history)(Stalin's purges comes to mind here)
It seems to me that us as Americans have become complacent. Its almost as we think "This can't happen here, we have a constitution that forbids such activity." Yet, the government, is making inroads towards a surveillance society, and a good portion of us say nothing.
The British now have cameras on every street, (In which the operators have been caught looking into peoples homes) guns have been banned, and crime has done what? Gone up? Whaaat?
I just want to know where this madness ends? We all know in the end it will be the criminals who will be unaffected, and the innocent types who get hassled. | |
|
| | | Re: A quick thought Your dialogue falls on many deaf ears sadly. | |
|
MrHappy316Wish I had my tankPremium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Where's the problem? Scanner listeners have been clamoring about it for years (i think the 80's) that anything sent over the airwaves are not private unless you encrypt it. While I myself use a cell phone as my primary phone I know that anything I might say goes out over the air and is public knowledge. Given the right government agency and technology what I say is out there in the open. That's why wired tech is always better than omnidirectional air transmission. | |
|
| |  Its The Beaurocracy Stupid!
Learn how your government works before arguing about it.  | |
|
|
|
