Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama Admin "No right to privacy"Follow

#27 Feb 11 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
teh article wrote:
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.


I see their point. I don't care for the implications much.

I have little sympathy for cell phone users' expectation of privacy to begin with, since those things are basically little transmitters and anyone can pick up your conversation if they care to (or pretty frequently by accident).

However, the slope has already become a bit slick with tracking Internet usage and email hops. This is just another slip.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#28 Feb 11 2010 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
However, the slope has already become a bit slick with tracking Internet usage and email hops. This is just another slip.


Though I'm not particularly concerned about call log analysis in the manner it has been used, I do see the slippery slope aspect of the issue. I guess I could get a little more huffy and puffy about it.
#29 Feb 11 2010 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Samira wrote:
However, the slope has already become a bit slick with tracking Internet usage and email hops. This is just another slip.


Though I'm not particularly concerned about call log analysis in the manner it has been used, I do see the slippery slope aspect of the issue. I guess I could get a little more huffy and puffy about it.


I didn't get a "harrumph" outta that guy!
#30 Feb 11 2010 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Watch your ***.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#31 Feb 11 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Smiley: inlove
#32 Feb 11 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
This reminds me of the most recent batman. Batman uses cell phones that his company sold to track the joker. Just wait until we have a govn agency with that system.



#33 Feb 11 2010 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Most things the Government does can be boiled down to something Batman or Superman did.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#34 Feb 11 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I am strictly against warrantless wiretapping. that has nothing to do with the article linked, though.

Call logs? That's fine. Commonplace, really. Has been for a long time.

GPS tracking/tracing? Hm. Tricky one, that. Need to consider the implications more.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#35REDACTED, Posted: Feb 11 2010 at 4:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#36 Feb 11 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
What do you imagine has been searched and seized? the (private) companies involved apparently cooperated voluntarily.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#37 Feb 11 2010 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
When did you start giving a **** about civil liberties?
#38 Feb 11 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
I am strictly against warrantless wiretapping. that has nothing to do with the article linked, though.


But you're for warrantless search and seizures?

Quote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


Glad to see you couldn't care less about Obama doing something far worse than W ever did.
So now not only do you care about civil liberties now but you agree that what W did was bad?



Edited, Feb 11th 2010 5:41pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#39REDACTED, Posted: Feb 11 2010 at 5:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#40 Feb 11 2010 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
But you're for warrantless search and seizures?

Quote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

So, when were we going to actually discuss the article you linked? Because, so far, you haven't.

If we're going to just throw about random baseless conjecture, then I'm going to say, that, umm, you obviously favor radioactive polyfiber to stuff childrens' toys with.

How can you be so cruel and heartless? Besides the fact that, as a closet homosexual, you of course wouldn't be breeding any children yourself.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#41 Feb 11 2010 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Glad to see you couldn't care less about Obama doing something far worse than W ever did.

Yeah, that's not even close to true but, hey, I said both are/were wrong. Are you agreeing with me?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Feb 11 2010 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Simply recording the movements of a large number of people "just in case" they need it goes a pretty big step past logging phone calls made.


That's absolutely not what happened in the case described in the article. Nice straw man attempt though.


In the example case in the first paragraph? Or the actual case being considered? Or the multiple examples of tracking mentioned farther down the article?

See. I read the whole article, not just the first paragraph or two. Specifically:

Quote:
Whether state and federal police have been paying attention to Hollywood, or whether it was the other way around, cell phone tracking has become a regular feature in criminal investigations. It comes in two forms: police obtaining retrospective data kept by mobile providers for their own billing purposes that may not be very detailed, or prospective data that reveals the minute-by-minute location of a handset or mobile device.



The use of "retrospective" data isn't that much of a deal. Every single time you make a cell phone call, part of the data of the call is which cell towers were in range for the duration of the call. It's not rocket science to use triangulation to know approximately where you were while making the call. And guess what? That data is already being collected by the cell phone companies cause they kinda have to in order to manage their own phone systems. The police absolutely can subpoena that information and it doesn't become "stale".


If you'd read farther down the article, you'd have noticed that the second type of tracking was talked about. That form requires that the cell phone company actively track your phone even when you aren't making a phone call. It is that form of tracking which most people are most concerned about and which should certainly require a warrant to obtain.


If you guys had read the entire article you'd have understood that this is what I was talking about in the previous post...

Edited, Feb 11th 2010 6:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Feb 11 2010 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
**
300 posts
I chalk this up to: If I know I'm not calling anyone the government is interested in, or doing something the government would be interested in asking me about, I really could give to craps to the wind what they do with my phone calls/records.

Since I know I do neither of the above (I'm just not that damn special it seems), The Government or whoever can take my phone records and my phone calls and build a nice mural of the Constitution with it.
#44 Feb 11 2010 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,877 posts
Quote:
This reminds me of the most recent batman. Batman uses cell phones that his company sold to track the joker. Just wait until we have a govn agency with that system.


Well now Varus, I would have assumed that someone of your "intellectual capabilities"* would have stop believing cartoons as being real. I mean come on... you sit down in front of your tele, flip through the channels, see that Batman is on and think to yourself "Cool! I wonder what Batman will use today to kick some liberal bad guy butt." Then you watch Batman track the Joker using telephones that his company sells and somehow come to the conclusion that "OMG those crafty Liberals Liberals are trying to pass a law so they can listen into my every conversation."

Since you're such a strong believer of cartoons Varus, I am going to call you Mayor West for as long as I remember to (which knowing my luck will last for this post and maybe the next one :l). In case you don't understand, I will put an example for you in a link below.

NSFW -last couple of seconds-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJUJKt5zox4

#45 Feb 12 2010 at 9:04 AM Rating: Default
Debo,

Quote:
So, when were we going to actually discuss the article you linked? Because, so far, you haven't.

If we're going to just throw about random baseless conjecture, then I'm going to say, that, umm, you obviously favor radioactive polyfiber to stuff childrens' toys with.

How can you be so cruel and heartless? Besides the fact that, as a closet homosexual, you of course wouldn't be breeding any children yourself.



If you don't want to talk about, or even recognize, that Obama is violating the 4th amendment go right ahead. I know ignoring your party leaders f*ck ups is par for the course.



And Jophed,

I don't think monitoring communications from known terrorist sponsors coming into the US is a violation of anyone civil liberties. Of course my party isn't the one mirandizing terrorists so I can see why this would be a touchy subject for you.




#46 Feb 12 2010 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
I don't think monitoring communications from known terrorist sponsors coming into the US is a violation of anyone civil liberties.
This sentence is a travesty against the English language, and the implication that sponsors of terrorism are solely talking to terrorists is stupid as well. (More frequently they'd be talking to their personal bankers, and monitoring the communications is violating the bankers' civil liberties. And since the bankers in these cases would, presumably, be good Republicans...)
#47 Feb 12 2010 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
I don't think monitoring communications from known terrorist sponsors coming into the US is a violation of anyone civil liberties.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about "monitoring communications from known terrorist sponsors coming into the US."

Hey, did you see Newt Gingrich on the Daily Show saying it was right to Mirandize Richard Reed because he was a US citizen... even though Richard Reed was a British citizen?

Or Kit Bond admitting that he was told that Abdulmutallab would be in FBI custody on Christmas but... but he had no idea that being in FBI custody meant you were Mirandized? The leading Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has absolutely no idea on how the FBI operates? Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 12th 2010 9:22am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48REDACTED, Posted: Feb 12 2010 at 10:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Mdenham,
#49 Feb 12 2010 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
If you don't want to talk about, or even recognize, that Obama is violating the 4th amendment go right ahead. I know ignoring your party leaders f*ck ups is par for the course.

If you can show me where they're violating the fourth, then I will state my objections to that practice.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#50REDACTED, Posted: Feb 12 2010 at 11:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#51 Feb 12 2010 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
If I'm walking down the street and someone sees me do something, or hears me say something, catches me on video it can be used by anyone they want to give it to. I'm knowingly exposing myself to this by leaving my house.

By using my cellphone, or any communications device really, I'm knowingly passing information to the provider so they can relay that information to my intended recipient. I am essentially GIVING this information away. So no, you do not have a right to privacy when you freely give the information to a 3rd party. If you want something to be private, don't share it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 288 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (288)