...all those people I called crazy and paranoid are actually right!
I don't have anything to hide, nor am I going to stop carrying my phone, but I don't like the idea that the police can start tracking my phone because they feel like it.
...
Hear hear!
As far as I'm concerned, law enforcement is getting way too much power. Why in the world is it ok for police to track someone and not even have to justify it by getting a warrant?
...
Don't police need a warrant to do a wiretap? How is this different?
...
It's different because they are not listening to your conversation. They only know what cell site you made your call from...and that you were within it's 2 mile radius.
...
that's a really good point... this could only be useful say to find someone they already had evidence or a case against would not be very helpful in building one other than say placing someone at a crime scene. I was as disturbed as anyone after first reading this though that has certainly relieved me somewhat. Definately still don't like it.
...
That's like having a witness call the police and say they saw the suspect in their part of time at whatever time of day, just that now the cell companies can tell the authorities faster and more precise.
...
But doesn't this count as surveillance? They may not know what you're saying, but they're keeping track of where you are. That doesn't require a warrant?
...
that was basically the fear of 3 other district court judges. they had all previously turned down this request, but the US DOJ kept bringing it back in new courts. they can do that since they're the federal gov't.
previous judges though it encroached on the 4th ammendment a bit too much. this judge decided since it simply places a caller in a general locale and doesn't give a location or reveal the conversation that it was ok. in a way it's just an electronic "tail." i'm not sure that tailing a suspect requires a warrant. we could ask a lawyer.
one thing that hasn't been considered here as well, that may make life a little nicer for the innocent among us is that this same technology could be used to prove our innocence. as in, he couldn'...
(continues)
...
i agree in a way. i mean if it's just to locate suspects in a general area, then why not? the only reason you should be worried is if you committed the crime. again, they don't get an exact location nor do they know what you were talking about. just a general of where you were. again though, unless you're on the run from the cops, you have nothing to worry about. they said it was only for suspects anyway. and if you're running from the cops, you have more to worry about than where your cellphone was used.
...
if you truly believe that this is going to be a perfectly executed, unabused ability by the police........then you are way too trusting of your government. The purpose of the constitution is for 2 things.......
1. to protect the minority from the will of the majority.
2. to protect the civilian from the govern
The whole reason that we have the constitution is to set limitations as to avoid abuse by any party. It has been the history of the court to err on the side of liberty as opposed to oppression. This is just the latest in a series of alarming court decisions (i.e. - supreme court ruling on emminent domain) that are causing me to question our court system.
...
i don't believe the government or the court systems are perfect, but neither are you. no one is, and anything that is run by people will have it's issues. and the majority is the majority for a reason. because the majority of the people believe the same, you're just another one of those nuts who think the government is out to kill us all and those they don't kill will be framed for killing the others. grow up. it's not cool to think the world is going to end anymore. in fact, it never was. and yeah, our government isn't perfect, but what are we going to do? lets get 20 people together and we'll stage a coup.
...
you assume too much....I happen to fall into most majorities in this country (i.e. white, male, middle class, some college education), but I don't think that entitles me to be able to force people who don't fit these criteria into my scheme of the world.
The constitution and the supreme court are there to prevent the worst-case scenario. It may not happen, but history tells us it probably will. We, as a people on the whole, tend to divide and impose our will upon others. When looking at constitutional issues, the #1 question you should be asking yourself is, "what could this lead to?"
I am hardly a paranoia-freak or a conspiracy nut, but I am hardly naive enough to trust our government to its own. That would be asinine.
...
so write your senator a letter, and tell him how you feel.
...
you jest, but unfortunately....that is probably one of the only resources left to the alienated citizen....futile as it usually is. Still, though, it is something I would do......were I not as lazy as I am.
...
And a non-paid intern will type you up the most worthless response imaginable. might as well say "your opinion means much to me but i do not care what you have to say. i hope you continue to vote for me even though i don't care whether you live or die."
...
petitions are more affective - they MIGHT listen better when they could possibly lose a thousand or so voters
...
if you think a senator or congressman gives a damn you are more deluded than i thought.
...
shush... your just trying to start arguments
besides it was sarcasm
...
you ever hear that ben franklin quote?
...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
...
alejandro said:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I don't think Big Ben had an inkling of what we'd be facing in the 21st Century. Particularly religious fanatics bent on wiping us from the face of the earth.
...
yeah, he only had one of the mightiest empires try to wipe us out......
besides the fact that his greatest enemies were religious fanatics. nothing strikes truer than that quote.
...
alejandro said:
yeah, he only had one of the mightiest empires try to wipe us out......
besides the fact that his greatest enemies were religious fanatics. nothing strikes truer than that quote.
Back then, war was civil. I'm not so sure what war is any longer...
...
back then war was civil? hmm...
Here was our favorite tactic.
Brittish soldiers were taught to put down their arms to a white flag of surrender, so we would surrender and when their arms were put down we would fire upon them. A handful of radicals against the brittish empire? besides the help from the french was a lot of underhanded tricks not unlike guerilla warfare.
nostalgia for "wars of gentlement" always astounds me.
...
alejandro said:
back then war was civil? hmm...
Here was our favorite tactic.
Brittish soldiers were taught to put down their arms to a white flag of surrender, so we would surrender and when their arms were put down we would fire upon them. A handful of radicals against the brittish empire? besides the help from the french was a lot of underhanded tricks not unlike guerilla warfare.
nostalgia for "wars of gentlement" always astounds me.
Let me put it in terms you might understand: The British Empire wasn't facing nuclear terrorism. Laying down a white flag to trick your enemy isn't the same as having access to nuclear devices with the expressed intent to use said devices.
...
The cold war was nuclear terrorism, you are really drifting from the point and taking me along for the ride though. The quote rings more true now than ever, it is a timeless quote and even in a nuclear holocaust with children dying in the streets you may value safety over freedom, but with every measurement of safety you loose freedom, how much freedom you actually want is up to you, but it just proves we may be free'er, but we are not free.
...
alejandro said:
The cold war was nuclear terrorism, you are really drifting from the point and taking me along for the ride though. The quote rings more true now than ever, it is a timeless quote and even in a nuclear holocaust with children dying in the streets you may value safety over freedom, but with every measurement of safety you loose freedom, how much freedom you actually want is up to you, but it just proves we may be free'er, but we are not free.
Okay. To the point, then: I don't mind Bush using wiretaps or cell companies tracking my position. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about. In this day and age, if I have to lose some freedom to gain some safety...so be it.
...
this debate is rather pointless as people like you have never been in the situation where you would understand that "wrong" and "illegal" are subjective and if people do not like you and what you are doing the law can easily apply to anyone, and the word warrant means with reason.... so ... let me go slow here..... they can look you up...... without reason..... "there is no reason to spy on me i have done nothing wrong" goooooood...... now they do not need a reason.....
...
alejandro said:
this debate is rather pointless as people like you have never been in the situation where you would understand that "wrong" and "illegal" are subjective and if people do not like you and what you are doing the law can easily apply to anyone, and the word warrant means with reason.... so ... let me go slow here..... they can look you up...... without reason..... "there is no reason to spy on me i have done nothing wrong" goooooood...... now they do not need a reason.....
No reason to go slow...I've got a Master's in Telecommunication. The world's changing, Skippy...learn to adjust.
...
The govt. can't abuse it without access form the cellular carriers. The govt. does not control the towers, or the cell phone system, your carrier does, so as long as the carriers do not release the information to the govt. to allow them to abuse the power, they can't
...
that's a tenuous line
...
suppose an unnamed carrier choses not to release that information......
how long do you think it would be before that carrier loses government contracts?
before they lose government approval for research grants?
before they lose support in congress?
this is a money driven society. I hope to God that you don't think the cell-phone companies will patriot your rights to the government. If that is your last line of defense against tyranny, then prepare yourself for some hard times.
...
djdelay said:
[...]unnamed carrier chooses not[...]
...
Certainly, Congress can strong arm just about anyone to do anything. They've past measures to try and pressure wealthy European countries to cave in, I certainly think they can stick to a corporation. After all, all it takes is a couple of point fall in the stock market for things to spiral downward.
Stu
...
There was an extended discussion of this on a recent NPR talk of the nation. I am no Bush fan, but the summary is not complete.
First, these are national security investigations. I don't take a lot of solice in this fact since I hear everyone stretching the envelope on this point. Last night, during BBC's piece on US illegal immigration, they had the head of the Border Patrol from Arizona arguing that every illegal border crosser was akin to a terrorists.
Using these logic, drug deals have been known to fund terrorists operations, stolen cars have been used in car bombing plots, house burglars have been known to sell stolen passports to document forgers who alter the documents potentially to let terrorists in our front door. Hel...
(continues)
...
But they are not allowing them to see if you were at an exact location, they are just allowing them to know you placed a call within a towers coverage area at this time.
...
say it as many times as you want pimp, these people just won't get it. they're all too busy screaming about how their rights are being violated. well, don't break the law and you won't have to worry about it. and like one said earlier. it can also prove innocence, i.e john couldn't have killed mary because he was in chicago when she was killed in florida. the only problem with this, is how do they know who has the cell phone in this person's name. especially if they're on a family share plan?
...
they do know what you are saying, that stuff is available upon warrant from my carrier.
...
They stil need a warrant to get a call record or to bug the calls, all this is giving them allowance to do is see what tower your call was placed through.
...
rome didnt fall in a day, be patience
...
That does violate the 4th amendment though, if courts are "iffy" about allowing this, they won't allow that, that would be the same as allowing them to trace your home calls without a warrant. A phone call is still the same whether it is from a home phone or a cell phone.
...
If you think thre still is a 4th ammendment you really haven't been paying attention. That was dead before the patriot act, it was just the nail in the coffin.
...
isn't it 20 miles? or is it they can only tap into the e911 side of things?
...
i wish they had a 20 mile radius!! Would make my job easier heh
...
no, they cannot tap the e911 side. it's just for a tower that was used last. i think it would actually make more sense to give them an exact location. save the tax dollars for more than just looking for the criminal. of course for that there should have to be a warrant.
...
I have told customers for over a year their gps locator is "for 911 reasons if you get trapped in a ditch, you can be found, if the justice department wants to see who you are calling"
...
evilbstrd666 said:
...all those people I called crazy and paranoid are actually right!
I don't have anything to hide, nor am I going to stop carrying my phone, but I don't like the idea that the police can start tracking my phone because they feel like it.
If you've done nothing wrong, then you shouldn't worry. Welcome to the future.
...
Sadly, this was predicted...God bless the idiots that continue to pull the rest of us down the path to certain distruction. 🙄
...