login
Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-06-07 7:24 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite  4564    Boise |  Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to fedsOriginally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Since I've seen you in the other thread I'm going to respond to your question with a question. Who is impacted by a national gun registry? Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by Left Brain Prism. The whole thing does suck. We have turned into the USSR, listening, watching, telling others to turn in someone "suspicious". All in the name of security, our founders would be so proud of us. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain The problem isn't just the phone records, it's that we know they are doing far more extensive surveillance of US citizens. We can't keep the Chinese from hacking into our top secret info and now we're just data mining the entire countries records and storing them in Utah. Gee what could go wrong here. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Surely the terrorists are dumb enough to use the same phone number repeatedly and not use something as simple as a Trac phone right? They probably are even dumb enough to keep on the same phone network with the same number instead of buying new disposable phones that run on say Verizon, then Sprint, then AT&T, then T-mobile. Of course there's no way to challenge this in court because there's no way to prove it was used against. It's not like the government would ever do something like this for political gain either, oh wait... Originally posted by JoshR What a sad country we are becoming.
Given that terrorist organizations use cell phones almost exclusively, and we know that those same organizations are constantly probing for weakness and places to launch an attack/recruit new members/solicit funds/etc., exactly how do you propose our agencies charged with stopping that threat go about it? So they get phone records, which by the way don't belong exclusively to you, and they look for patterns that they have learned may be a sign of terrorist activity. I say great! Thanks for looking out for us! I'll keep using my phone exactly as I always have. Oh, I know, I know.....I'm somehow giving up some part of my liberty by not caring if someone sees a phone number coming up repeatedly to other numbers of known terrorists/terrorist organizations.
Josh, I've sat on numerous wiretaps......it's really not as hard as you think to keep track of a KNOWN terrorists phone changing tactics.....our targets were drug dealers, but they changed phones as often as anyone else who has criminal intent....easy stuff. They're not using the records to keep track of known terrorists.....that's easy stuff. They're likely using the records the same way we used wiretaps....to identify people we didn't yet know about. Dude....if you are a known criminal, and a court order/search warrant has been issued to wiretap you......you go on and use all the Trac phones, etc. you want.....that's really easy to overcome. As much as you'd like to think differently....if you aren't involved in criminal activities nobody on the goverment's end gives a rats arse who you talk to or what you talk about. And from your comment about how sad we are becoming I take it you think this is something new? I have been conducting "extensive surveillance" on U.S. citizens for the better part of my career. Everything from phone taps to GPS's on vehicles, to trash pickups.....there is nothing new here. Before any wire goes up we also do "phone tolls"....and have been for decades. It's a collection of numbers called to a from a target....really basic stuff. With the advent of cell phones the information is much easier to get.....and like I said, the records belong to the phone company as well as the individual....if you don't like it, don't use a cell phone. Also, since you made the statement, can you source any of the "more extensive surveillance" that we apparently "know about"? I live in the same country you do.....I don't feel "watched" and don't feel threatened......ever. I'm trying to figure out who is being violated by any of this. I heard alot of whining after 9/11 and other attacks about our lack of doing something to prevent the attacks....and it appears we are now doing that, and here is more whining. Exactly who is being violated here, and how are they being violated? Can you tell me how your life is being impacted by any of this? I'm asking sincerely.....what is it about any of this that is affecting your day to day life? We all are. The Constitutional amendment says we can have guns.....period. Where does the Constitution say that you can have a facebook page, or a cell phone, or a twitter account? Yes, the Constitutional amendment (4th) says that you have the right to be safe from unlawful search and seizure......but I'm sorry, what you post on a social media site doesn't qualify....neither do your phone records that a company also stores.....they own them as well as you. I can pick up your trash from the curb and search it without a warrant (we do it ALL the time).....because you set it out there and therefore no longer have an expectation of privacy. You just think your phone number and facebook and twitter accounts are private....they most certainly are not in the majority of cases. If someone else can see them (including your provider) you are not protected. Your provider can give that information to anyone who asks......you simply gave up your privacy in that regard. A national registry isn't preventing anyone from owning guns, except those expressly forbidden from owning them. No one's 2nd amendment is violated. You buy a gun and register it to the list. Of course no one wants a national registry because of the possibility of using it in the future to ban guns. If you read the articles about prism, it's not just facebook or social media, but other companies that are the backbone of the entire internet that the NSA has complete access to every bit of data they generate. Microsoft, Apple, Google. Right there you've got just about every single person who uses a computer under surveillance. |
| 2013-06-07 7:37 AM in reply to: JoshR |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by JoshR A national registry isn't preventing anyone from owning guns, except those expressly forbidden from owning them. No one's 2nd amendment is violated. You buy a gun and register it to the list. Of course no one wants a national registry because of the possibility of using it in the future to ban guns. If you read the articles about prism, it's not just facebook or social media, but other companies that are the backbone of the entire internet that the NSA has complete access to every bit of data they generate. Microsoft, Apple, Google. Right there you've got just about every single person who uses a computer under surveillance. If you don't want your gun registered then don't buy a gun. right. It's so simple, as long as I don't buy a gun, don't talk in public, don't go in public, don't make any phone calls, and don't post on the internet my constitutional rights are fully in tact. Sounds reasonable. |
| 2013-06-07 7:38 AM in reply to: JoshR |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by tuwood In this case Tony, no one is fighting for our civil rights. Both sides knew about this and allow it to happen. Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Since I've seen you in the other thread I'm going to respond to your question with a question. Who is impacted by a national gun registry? Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by Left Brain Prism. The whole thing does suck. We have turned into the USSR, listening, watching, telling others to turn in someone "suspicious". All in the name of security, our founders would be so proud of us. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain The problem isn't just the phone records, it's that we know they are doing far more extensive surveillance of US citizens. We can't keep the Chinese from hacking into our top secret info and now we're just data mining the entire countries records and storing them in Utah. Gee what could go wrong here. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Surely the terrorists are dumb enough to use the same phone number repeatedly and not use something as simple as a Trac phone right? They probably are even dumb enough to keep on the same phone network with the same number instead of buying new disposable phones that run on say Verizon, then Sprint, then AT&T, then T-mobile. Of course there's no way to challenge this in court because there's no way to prove it was used against. It's not like the government would ever do something like this for political gain either, oh wait... Originally posted by JoshR What a sad country we are becoming.
Given that terrorist organizations use cell phones almost exclusively, and we know that those same organizations are constantly probing for weakness and places to launch an attack/recruit new members/solicit funds/etc., exactly how do you propose our agencies charged with stopping that threat go about it? So they get phone records, which by the way don't belong exclusively to you, and they look for patterns that they have learned may be a sign of terrorist activity. I say great! Thanks for looking out for us! I'll keep using my phone exactly as I always have. Oh, I know, I know.....I'm somehow giving up some part of my liberty by not caring if someone sees a phone number coming up repeatedly to other numbers of known terrorists/terrorist organizations.
Josh, I've sat on numerous wiretaps......it's really not as hard as you think to keep track of a KNOWN terrorists phone changing tactics.....our targets were drug dealers, but they changed phones as often as anyone else who has criminal intent....easy stuff. They're not using the records to keep track of known terrorists.....that's easy stuff. They're likely using the records the same way we used wiretaps....to identify people we didn't yet know about. Dude....if you are a known criminal, and a court order/search warrant has been issued to wiretap you......you go on and use all the Trac phones, etc. you want.....that's really easy to overcome. As much as you'd like to think differently....if you aren't involved in criminal activities nobody on the goverment's end gives a rats arse who you talk to or what you talk about. And from your comment about how sad we are becoming I take it you think this is something new? I have been conducting "extensive surveillance" on U.S. citizens for the better part of my career. Everything from phone taps to GPS's on vehicles, to trash pickups.....there is nothing new here. Before any wire goes up we also do "phone tolls"....and have been for decades. It's a collection of numbers called to a from a target....really basic stuff. With the advent of cell phones the information is much easier to get.....and like I said, the records belong to the phone company as well as the individual....if you don't like it, don't use a cell phone. Also, since you made the statement, can you source any of the "more extensive surveillance" that we apparently "know about"? I live in the same country you do.....I don't feel "watched" and don't feel threatened......ever. I'm trying to figure out who is being violated by any of this. I heard alot of whining after 9/11 and other attacks about our lack of doing something to prevent the attacks....and it appears we are now doing that, and here is more whining. Exactly who is being violated here, and how are they being violated? Can you tell me how your life is being impacted by any of this? I'm asking sincerely.....what is it about any of this that is affecting your day to day life? We all are. The Constitutional amendment says we can have guns.....period. Where does the Constitution say that you can have a facebook page, or a cell phone, or a twitter account? Yes, the Constitutional amendment (4th) says that you have the right to be safe from unlawful search and seizure......but I'm sorry, what you post on a social media site doesn't qualify....neither do your phone records that a company also stores.....they own them as well as you. I can pick up your trash from the curb and search it without a warrant (we do it ALL the time).....because you set it out there and therefore no longer have an expectation of privacy. You just think your phone number and facebook and twitter accounts are private....they most certainly are not in the majority of cases. If someone else can see them (including your provider) you are not protected. Your provider can give that information to anyone who asks......you simply gave up your privacy in that regard. LB, when you get phone records do you have to get a warrant, or do you just flash a badge and the phone company gives you whatever you want? I have absolutely no issues with law enforcement, or the government having access to this type of data when there is probable cause. When it comes to social media, blogs, etc... I'm putting information out in the public domain so that is absolutely fair game. I also disagree with your premise that if anyone else can see your records (including your provider) that they are not protected. You can't legally listen to my conversation on the phone or voice mails without a warrant because it's legally protected. The carrier has access to the audio, if they want, but that doesn't give law enforcement the right to it. There's no question that law enforcement can use information like this to their advantage, but I can also argue that law enforcement would get a huge advantage if they put wires in every house in heavy crime areas. However, the ends don't justify the means. On a side note, I do find it ironic that the Republican's are the ones fighting for civil rights (1st, 2nd, 4th Amendment) and the democrats are the ones trying to trounce them in the name of "safety". True, I guess I'm thinking of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz when I say fighting, but they're barely Republicans. |
| 2013-06-07 8:27 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by JoshR A national registry isn't preventing anyone from owning guns, except those expressly forbidden from owning them. No one's 2nd amendment is violated. You buy a gun and register it to the list. Of course no one wants a national registry because of the possibility of using it in the future to ban guns. If you read the articles about prism, it's not just facebook or social media, but other companies that are the backbone of the entire internet that the NSA has complete access to every bit of data they generate. Microsoft, Apple, Google. Right there you've got just about every single person who uses a computer under surveillance. If you don't want your gun registered then don't buy a gun. right. It's so simple, as long as I don't buy a gun, don't talk in public, don't go in public, don't make any phone calls, and don't post on the internet my constitutional rights are fully in tact. Sounds reasonable. Exactly my point. I'm just wondering how LB supports one but not the other. Rand Paul is the only one in Congress who even came close to trying to protect our rights, IMO. |
| 2013-06-07 8:37 AM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Last March, James Clapper (head of NSA) testified before a senate committee that the agency did not "wittingly" collect any data on Americans. Seems to me he is a liar. They know what they are doing is wrong and unconstitutional. What is going on here should worry everyone, because if this is legal and OK there are truly no limits to what they can do to SPY on us. Edited by NXS 2013-06-07 8:39 AM |
| 2013-06-07 8:57 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Since I've seen you in the other thread I'm going to respond to your question with a question. Who is impacted by a national gun registry? Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by Left Brain Prism. The whole thing does suck. We have turned into the USSR, listening, watching, telling others to turn in someone "suspicious". All in the name of security, our founders would be so proud of us. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain The problem isn't just the phone records, it's that we know they are doing far more extensive surveillance of US citizens. We can't keep the Chinese from hacking into our top secret info and now we're just data mining the entire countries records and storing them in Utah. Gee what could go wrong here. Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by Left Brain Surely the terrorists are dumb enough to use the same phone number repeatedly and not use something as simple as a Trac phone right? They probably are even dumb enough to keep on the same phone network with the same number instead of buying new disposable phones that run on say Verizon, then Sprint, then AT&T, then T-mobile. Of course there's no way to challenge this in court because there's no way to prove it was used against. It's not like the government would ever do something like this for political gain either, oh wait... Originally posted by JoshR What a sad country we are becoming.
Given that terrorist organizations use cell phones almost exclusively, and we know that those same organizations are constantly probing for weakness and places to launch an attack/recruit new members/solicit funds/etc., exactly how do you propose our agencies charged with stopping that threat go about it? So they get phone records, which by the way don't belong exclusively to you, and they look for patterns that they have learned may be a sign of terrorist activity. I say great! Thanks for looking out for us! I'll keep using my phone exactly as I always have. Oh, I know, I know.....I'm somehow giving up some part of my liberty by not caring if someone sees a phone number coming up repeatedly to other numbers of known terrorists/terrorist organizations.
Josh, I've sat on numerous wiretaps......it's really not as hard as you think to keep track of a KNOWN terrorists phone changing tactics.....our targets were drug dealers, but they changed phones as often as anyone else who has criminal intent....easy stuff. They're not using the records to keep track of known terrorists.....that's easy stuff. They're likely using the records the same way we used wiretaps....to identify people we didn't yet know about. Dude....if you are a known criminal, and a court order/search warrant has been issued to wiretap you......you go on and use all the Trac phones, etc. you want.....that's really easy to overcome. As much as you'd like to think differently....if you aren't involved in criminal activities nobody on the goverment's end gives a rats arse who you talk to or what you talk about. And from your comment about how sad we are becoming I take it you think this is something new? I have been conducting "extensive surveillance" on U.S. citizens for the better part of my career. Everything from phone taps to GPS's on vehicles, to trash pickups.....there is nothing new here. Before any wire goes up we also do "phone tolls"....and have been for decades. It's a collection of numbers called to a from a target....really basic stuff. With the advent of cell phones the information is much easier to get.....and like I said, the records belong to the phone company as well as the individual....if you don't like it, don't use a cell phone. Also, since you made the statement, can you source any of the "more extensive surveillance" that we apparently "know about"? I live in the same country you do.....I don't feel "watched" and don't feel threatened......ever. I'm trying to figure out who is being violated by any of this. I heard alot of whining after 9/11 and other attacks about our lack of doing something to prevent the attacks....and it appears we are now doing that, and here is more whining. Exactly who is being violated here, and how are they being violated? Can you tell me how your life is being impacted by any of this? I'm asking sincerely.....what is it about any of this that is affecting your day to day life? We all are. The Constitutional amendment says we can have guns.....period. Where does the Constitution say that you can have a facebook page, or a cell phone, or a twitter account? Yes, the Constitutional amendment (4th) says that you have the right to be safe from unlawful search and seizure......but I'm sorry, what you post on a social media site doesn't qualify....neither do your phone records that a company also stores.....they own them as well as you. I can pick up your trash from the curb and search it without a warrant (we do it ALL the time).....because you set it out there and therefore no longer have an expectation of privacy. You just think your phone number and facebook and twitter accounts are private....they most certainly are not in the majority of cases. If someone else can see them (including your provider) you are not protected. Your provider can give that information to anyone who asks......you simply gave up your privacy in that regard. LB, when you get phone records do you have to get a warrant, or do you just flash a badge and the phone company gives you whatever you want? I have absolutely no issues with law enforcement, or the government having access to this type of data when there is probable cause. When it comes to social media, blogs, etc... I'm putting information out in the public domain so that is absolutely fair game. I also disagree with your premise that if anyone else can see your records (including your provider) that they are not protected. You can't legally listen to my conversation on the phone or voice mails without a warrant because it's legally protected. The carrier has access to the audio, if they want, but that doesn't give law enforcement the right to it. There's no question that law enforcement can use information like this to their advantage, but I can also argue that law enforcement would get a huge advantage if they put wires in every house in heavy crime areas. However, the ends don't justify the means. On a side note, I do find it ironic that the Republican's are the ones fighting for civil rights (1st, 2nd, 4th Amendment) and the democrats are the ones trying to trounce them in the name of "safety".
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. |
| 2013-06-07 9:01 AM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by NXS Last March, James Clapper (head of NSA) testified before a senate committee that the agency did not "wittingly" collect any data on Americans. Seems to me he is a liar. They know what they are doing is wrong and unconstitutional. What is going on here should worry everyone, because if this is legal and OK there are truly no limits to what they can do to SPY on us. agree. 64th Anniversary of 1984 being published this week. I think Orwell needs to be elevated to profit status. |
| 2013-06-07 9:28 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Left Brain
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWec I lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls. |
| 2013-06-07 9:37 AM in reply to: GomesBolt |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility.
What is it about your phone "records" that you think is private? Obviously your conversations are, but the numbers you call are kept on record by the phone provider....THOSE RECORDS BELONG TO THE PROVIDER.....they can give them to whoever they wish. Most of them require a court order as a means of showing their customer that they had no choice. A COURT ORDER does not require probable cause as a SEARCH WARRANT does. There is absolutely nothing new here. The trash you put out on the curb....we can pick it up to look for evidence of crimes....we don't need a warrant. The video of you walking down the street that was taken by a camera on the side of a building....I don't need a warrant to get that video. I don't even need a court order if the owner will just give it to me (the overwhelming majority of time it happens that way). Yes, it's your image.....it doesn't belong to you. Look, you can blame the govt. or whatever you want.....the fact of the matter is, we all gave up most of our privacy years ago.....right about the time we started using credit cards, and cell phones, and computers, and every other item that has your information tied to it. You no longer exclusively own that information....you gave it away! Big Brother didn't have to do anything but sit back and watch. |
| 2013-06-07 9:37 AM in reply to: GomesBolt |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWec I lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls. So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. |
| 2013-06-07 9:41 AM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. |
| 2013-06-07 9:57 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It seems the only instance we have strengthened is the doctor / patient relationship via HIPPA. But even some want that broken down as a way to tell who the bad guys who want to buy guns are by obtaining mental health records. |
| 2013-06-07 10:10 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering. |
| 2013-06-07 10:34 AM in reply to: pitt83 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by Left Brain It seems the only instance we have strengthened is the doctor / patient relationship via HIPPA. But even some want that broken down as a way to tell who the bad guys who want to buy guns are by obtaining mental health records. Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. No, I don't want mental health records for anyone except those who are deemed by doctors to be dangerous to society. I don't want phone records of anyone except those who show a pattern of calling people that are already known to be dangerous to our country. It's not a fine line.....it's a very distiguishable line. I have no worries that someone is looking at me or investigating me just because they know my phone number, or web address, my god, I've freely given that information to thousands of people (many of which I don't even know by way of businesses I've dealt with), what a waste of time that would be. |
| 2013-06-07 10:35 AM in reply to: GomesBolt |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering.Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It's a dragnet on every piece of data that can and does get compartmentalized by nerds at NSA and then these humans and their bosses are supposed to be trusted that they won't misuse that data on people who have committed no crime. We've seen we can't trust that with the IRS selectively targeting certain folks. At least Nixon was targeting a small group of people to break in on or use the IRS against. This is spying on everyone. No Gomes....it does NOT get "compartmentalized by nerds at NSA"....it gets compartmentalized by companies and businesses. All NSA does is use the information that you have freely given away. |
| 2013-06-07 10:36 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering.Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It's a dragnet on every piece of data that can and does get compartmentalized by nerds at NSA and then these humans and their bosses are supposed to be trusted that they won't misuse that data on people who have committed no crime. We've seen we can't trust that with the IRS selectively targeting certain folks. At least Nixon was targeting a small group of people to break in on or use the IRS against. This is spying on everyone. Dude, relax....nobody is spying on you....you're just not that important. The govt. doesn't have time to spy on you and me. But...they do have time to figure out who they should be watching.....and by mining the information THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED they can figure out who that is. Edited by Left Brain 2013-06-07 10:40 AM |
| 2013-06-07 10:45 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering.Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It's a dragnet on every piece of data that can and does get compartmentalized by nerds at NSA and then these humans and their bosses are supposed to be trusted that they won't misuse that data on people who have committed no crime. We've seen we can't trust that with the IRS selectively targeting certain folks. At least Nixon was targeting a small group of people to break in on or use the IRS against. This is spying on everyone. Dude, relax....nobody is spying on you....you're just not that important. Oh that's a relief! Well I guess I shouldn't worry then. This falls into the "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you care if they spy on you?" which is exactly the same line of crap as "If you're not a criminal, then why would you be against a national gun background check and gun registry?" |
| 2013-06-07 10:49 AM in reply to: GomesBolt |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain Oh that's a relief! Well I guess I shouldn't worry then. This falls into the "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you care if they spy on you?" which is exactly the same line of crap as "If you're not a criminal, then why would you be against a national gun background check and gun registry?"Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering.Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It's a dragnet on every piece of data that can and does get compartmentalized by nerds at NSA and then these humans and their bosses are supposed to be trusted that they won't misuse that data on people who have committed no crime. We've seen we can't trust that with the IRS selectively targeting certain folks. At least Nixon was targeting a small group of people to break in on or use the IRS against. This is spying on everyone. Dude, relax....nobody is spying on you....you're just not that important. LB, your arguments used to be better... Except that really....nobody is spying on you. This whole deal is politically motivated and always has been. That "if you're not doing anything wrong then why do you care if the spy on you" thing is ridiculous and always has been. Here's the truth....."I'm not doing anything wrong so nobody is spying on me". Geez....why the hell would they? I'm investing in tin foil.....I see a big run on hats coming. |
| 2013-06-07 11:06 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain Oh that's a relief! Well I guess I shouldn't worry then. This falls into the "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you care if they spy on you?" which is exactly the same line of crap as "If you're not a criminal, then why would you be against a national gun background check and gun registry?"Originally posted by GomesBolt Originally posted by Left Brain You say "any legal method to investigate a crime." So, you're saying that every person with a yahoo, gmail, apple, verizon account is being investigated for a crime? That's my point. Probable Cause does not exist for this much data gathering.Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by GomesBolt So what I guess LB is saying is that the ends justify the means and to hell with constitutional rights. Sad, very sad. Originally posted by Left Brain Let me see if I have this right. There is no such thing as a requirement for "probable cause" in securing the phone records of people who are not even suspected of committing any crime? So what exactly does the 4th amendment protect? The video below shows the additional issues with this. Basically, the NSA could spy on every congressman, senator, and SC judge and gather whatever harmful information they want to use against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eITxTUMaWecI lived near Ft Meade during high school so I knew plenty of NSA folks even back in the 90s they were saying they were nervous about how much they were skirting the line when listening to phone calls.
More confusion for you, Tony. No, I do not need a warrant for phone records. Most providers want a court order, which is WAY down the scale from a search warrant and doesn't require probable cause. I can get phone records to further an investigation. Yes, there are some companies that have given us records without a court order (just flash the badge as you say).....they really can do whatever they want with the records.....they belong to the provider. And I'm sorry, but phone records are NOT conversations. And conversations aren't nearly as protected as you may think. I can record ANY conversation that I am a part of, whether you know I am or not...because, again, I also "own" the content of that conversation (for lack of a better term). Your privacy is your responsibility. I'm not saying that at all. I think it's terrible that we have given up so much of our privacy....but I know who to blame and it damn sure isn't the govt. I will use any legal method to investigate a crime.......the ends and means having nothing to do with it. It's a dragnet on every piece of data that can and does get compartmentalized by nerds at NSA and then these humans and their bosses are supposed to be trusted that they won't misuse that data on people who have committed no crime. We've seen we can't trust that with the IRS selectively targeting certain folks. At least Nixon was targeting a small group of people to break in on or use the IRS against. This is spying on everyone. Dude, relax....nobody is spying on you....you're just not that important. LB, your arguments used to be better... Except that really....nobody is spying on you. This whole deal is politically motivated and always has been. That "if you're not doing anything wrong then why do you care if the spy on you" thing is ridiculous and always has been. Here's the truth....."I'm not doing anything wrong so nobody is spying on me". Geez....why the hell would they? I'm investing in tin foil.....I see a big run on hats coming. I think we're taking the broader definition of spying, ie if I suddenly popped onto a terror watch list or something, the government would ALREADY have all of the info they could ever want from me. They don't have to go get it, they have it now. All they have to do is pull up my file. Given the people who are in charge of this, I don't have any faith whatsoever, that they wouldn't freely use this info in an unconstitutional manner without hesitation. |
| 2013-06-07 11:19 AM in reply to: JoshR |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds If LE or whoever found anything in the records that they felt need extra attention, they would simply then go get a warrant to get more information on that subject. It is already happening and is nothing new. These are called leads. Once you get a lead and you have to develop it, then you get the warrants or whatever your DA says you need to get it in court.
Again cell phone records are nothing more than a bunch of numbers that have been called or are being called. I imagine that once they see a pattern of calls to or from certain numbers, that would be enough "probable cause" for LE to get warrant that will give them access to everything about that cell number and subscriber. I worked for a cell phone company for years and this is what I did, I processed LE requests and assisted with wiretaps. Again, there is not that much personal information you can obtain from call records. |
| 2013-06-07 11:23 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Most of what LB says it true mainly because of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. V. Miller in 1976 in which the Court held that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. However, this could change. In a relatively recent case regarding the the government attaching GPS to a suspect's vehicle the Court held that there was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Although the majority decision hinged upon unlawful trespass, it left open the discussion on how to deal with new technology. In fact, Justice Sotomayor specifically addressed the possible need to reconsider U.S. v. Miller. Justice Sotomayor concurrence in U.S. v. Jones: ... More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “trade off” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. ... I hope that Congress takes the first bite at addressing this issue (Sen. Paul is to introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 today). Even without congressional action, I expect the Supreme Court to be accepting a case to review this issue in the next few years. Edited by Hook'em 2013-06-07 11:32 AM |
| 2013-06-07 11:26 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Hook'em Most of what LB says it true mainly because of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. V. Miller in 1976 in which the Court held that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. However, this could change. In a relatively recent case regarding the the government attaching GPS to a suspect's vehicle the Court held that there was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Although the majority decision hinged upon unlawful trespass, it left open the discussion on how to deal with new technology. In fact, Justice Sotomayor specifically addressed the possible need to reconsider U.S. v. Miller. Justice Sotomayor concurrence in U.S. v. Katz: ... More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “trade off” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. ... I hope that Congress takes the first bite at addressing this issue (Sen. Paul is to introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 today). Even without congressional action, I expect the Supreme Court to be accepting a case to review this issue in the next few years. Is this the case where LE went into a guys garage to attach the tracking device to his car? |
| 2013-06-07 11:41 AM in reply to: jford2309 |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by jford2309 Originally posted by Hook'em Most of what LB says it true mainly because of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. V. Miller in 1976 in which the Court held that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. However, this could change. In a relatively recent case regarding the the government attaching GPS to a suspect's vehicle the Court held that there was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Although the majority decision hinged upon unlawful trespass, it left open the discussion on how to deal with new technology. In fact, Justice Sotomayor specifically addressed the possible need to reconsider U.S. v. Miller. Justice Sotomayor concurrence in U.S. v. Katz: ... More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “trade off” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. ... I hope that Congress takes the first bite at addressing this issue (Sen. Paul is to introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 today). Even without congressional action, I expect the Supreme Court to be accepting a case to review this issue in the next few years. Is this the case where LE went into a guys garage to attach the tracking device to his car? Yes. But the concurring opinions of Sotomayor and Alito (who was joined by 3 others) demonstrate how the Court is aware that this type of case is on the horizon and hit many of the potential arguments that could be used against the government's collection and use of the type of data mined in the Verizon and other recent instances. |
| 2013-06-07 11:56 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds Originally posted by Hook'em Most of what LB says it true mainly because of the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. V. Miller in 1976 in which the Court held that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. However, this could change. In a relatively recent case regarding the the government attaching GPS to a suspect's vehicle the Court held that there was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Although the majority decision hinged upon unlawful trespass, it left open the discussion on how to deal with new technology. In fact, Justice Sotomayor specifically addressed the possible need to reconsider U.S. v. Miller. Justice Sotomayor concurrence in U.S. v. Jones: ... More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “trade off” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. ... I hope that Congress takes the first bite at addressing this issue (Sen. Paul is to introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 today). Even without congressional action, I expect the Supreme Court to be accepting a case to review this issue in the next few years. Yep....and really, the GPS ruling was no big deal for us. Now we get a search warrant for every GPS we put on a vehicle. We're not placing any more or any less GPS's....we're just following what is now the letter of the law. It didn't change anything. We weren't tracking random vehicles to begin with....we don't have time for that. Again, we don't "spy" on people, we investigate criminals. And nobody is "spying" on anyone in the NSA deal either, unless they find that you are, indeed, having dealings with known terrorists...and I applaud the pro-active approach to keeping our country safe from terrorists the best they can. |
| 2013-06-07 12:14 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Verizon giving millions of U.S. phone records to feds as a retail investigator, we have worked with LE to put trackers on vehicles in the past as long as they were in a public place (parking lot, etc) once they went into the garage it changed and we had to get warrants. It is just an extra step, but has not changed the way we track booster groups at all.
Not once have I known of anyone putting a tracker on a car just because they can! |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK