• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds push for tracking cell phones

Blackdog said:
They don't need to know my patterns or anyone else's without probable cause.

They can also get your exact location from a working cell phone. Don't you watch "NCIS?" ;)
Click to expand...
nah...i like csi.
 
Gibberish said:
We need a smaller government, not larger and more totalitarian.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make the government larger and more totalitarian. It makes it more efficient and less bureaucratic by not having to go through endless precautions to get something as trivial as information of where someone happened to be standing when they made a phone call and possibly end up not getting that information at all and making it harder to catch criminals.
 
Dav said:
This doesn't make the government larger and more totalitarian. It makes it more efficient and less bureaucratic by not having to go through endless precautions to get something as trivial as information of where someone happened to be standing when they made a phone call and possibly end up not getting that information at all and making it harder to catch criminals.
Click to expand...

I said it leads to the government being larger and more totalitarian. Allowing the government to easily monitor, track and catalog the everyday and private actions and conversations of it's citizens to be used in case they happen to break the law at some point in their lives is a horrible violation of freedom.

Liberty should not be sacrificed for supposed security.
 
Gibberish said:
I said it leads to the government being larger and more totalitarian. Allowing the government to easily monitor, track and catalog the everyday and private actions and conversations of it's citizens to be used in case they happen to break the law at some point in their lives is a horrible violation of freedom.
Click to expand...

And they're neither tracking conversations in this case nor monitoring people's "everyday private actions". They're finding out where people were when they made a phone call. Look at the 4th Amendment, and tell me how this violates that.
 
Dav said:
And they're neither tracking conversations in this case nor monitoring people's "everyday private actions". They're finding out where people were when they made a phone call.
Click to expand...
First it was just finding out who was calling who. Now it's just finding out where people were when they made a phone call. Next it will be just finding out whether certain keywords are mentioned during the phone call. Then it will be just finding out what the overall conversation is about. Pretty soon you'll be saying, "At least they aren't using rubber gloves." Yet...

Dav said:
Look at the 4th Amendment, and tell me how this violates that.
Click to expand...
Easy. We are protected by the 4th Amendment from "unreasonable" search without a warrant. Those of us opposed to these measures believe they are "unreasonable" unless a warrant has been issued. So it all comes down to how we define "unreasonable."
 
Dav said:
And they're neither tracking conversations in this case nor monitoring people's "everyday private actions". They're finding out where people were when they made a phone call. Look at the 4th Amendment, and tell me how this violates that.
Click to expand...

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You asked. :mrgreen:
 
Dav said:
And they're neither tracking conversations in this case nor monitoring people's "everyday private actions". They're finding out where people were when they made a phone call. Look at the 4th Amendment, and tell me how this violates that.
Click to expand...

It's really sad when you are actively trying to defend the government's right to snoop and monitor people's activities.

GPS is not based on phone calls. What the government will do is catalog your location every few minutes and match that up to where you say you were during any activity, not just phone calls.

Ten years after this passes the government will find out that some people are failing to keep their phone on their person at all times and request everyone where a tracking bracelet or insert a chip directly in their body.

Yes it's an exaggeration but it is to emphasis the point that there is NO PURPOSE to even consider going down the road of tracking law abiding citizens just in case they might break the law in the future.
 
Deuce said:
Where was the conservative outrage about increasing spending and expanding government during the Bush administration?
Click to expand...

All over the place. Many like me said Bush was to liberal and that the reason the GOP lost congress in 2006 is because they were spending like drunken democrats.
 
Gibberish said:
It's really sad when you are actively trying to defend the government's right to snoop and monitor people's activities.
Click to expand...

Considering we've been doing stuff like this for pretty much all of our history, and the courts have yet to strike it down, and that there's almost always approval from the DoJ involved, and most of the arguments against it are emotional ones from people without legal training, it's hard for me to believe the cries of those who say that this kind of thing is not constitutional.

EDIT: And I've never been one for the "slippery slope" argument.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Yes it's an exaggeration but it is to emphasis the point that there is NO PURPOSE to even consider going down the road of tracking law abiding citizens just in case they might break the law in the future.
Click to expand...

The people in this case were not law-abiding citizens.
 
American said:
Link


Okay lefties, what say you now? Is it still wrong?
Click to expand...

It seems like this is just confirming pre-existing policy. What do you expect from statist government? Whether it's R or D makes no difference. The brilliance of a two party system is that you can always attack the policies of the previous administration while simultaneously using them.

Also, most people don't know it, but most cell phones made in the past 7-8 years can have their microphones activated remotely. I learned about this in China. When we used to honestly talk about the Communists and the politics of China, we would take our batteries out of the phones (the only way to truly disable it). I comforted myself with the knowledge that it was just in China, but when I got home I found out that the same mechanism exists here.

We really have no knowledge of the true extent to which we may be monitored. If the warrantless factor is supported, then it will enable government to do any number of other things in secret.

This must be fought.
 
Hm. After reading the entire article, it doesn't seem to me like anything is being done by the government that it is illegal for private citizens to do. You cannot expect privacy when you're in public.

This is the best they could come up with:
Lenihan's opinion (PDF)--which, in an unusual show of solidarity, was signed by four other magistrate judges--noted that location information can reveal sensitive information such as health treatments, financial difficulties, marital counseling, and extra-marital affairs.
Click to expand...

And yet there's nothing to stop people from just following your car to see where you're going. There's no law against finding out "sensitive information".
 
After reading through this some more I am going to clarify my stance.

As for the article of the OP. I believe the government has the right to subpoena any company that provides a opt-in service to a specific civilian to gather information for a criminal investigation. If Verizon has log of my calls and those calls are linked to GPS coordinates then the government will have access to that. If I have chosen to sign up for Google Latitude and investigators subpoena Google for my tracking history then they can do that too. As part of the contracts of signing up for these opt-in services you are forced to agree to terms where the company must comply with criminal investigations.

What I am against is the government tracking someone NOT involved in an investigation without their permission for the purpose of trend reporting or evidence for possible future use if that person being tracked happens to break the law sometime in their life.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Bush, is that you?

I swear that sounds alot like Bush's way of thinking - and remember how much everyone hated him for that?
Click to expand...

Yes and I also remember republicans calling Obama the most liberal senator in the senate when he was running for president. :mrgreen:

Partisanship is a beautiful thing isn't it?
 
Lesson learned: don't carry a cellphone while commiting a crime...
 
Dav said:
This doesn't make the government larger and more totalitarian. It makes it more efficient and less bureaucratic by not having to go through endless precautions to get something as trivial as information of where someone happened to be standing when they made a phone call and possibly end up not getting that information at all and making it harder to catch criminals.
Click to expand...

Or it can help you track your political opponents where abouts for reasons that not be openly stated.

They have no reason to track people who are not already suspected of committing crimes, if they are a suspect they can go to a judge and offer up probable cause.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yes and I also remember republicans calling Obama the most liberal senator in the senate when he was running for president. :mrgreen:

Partisanship is a beautiful thing isn't it?
Click to expand...

:rofl
At least Bush had legitimate reasons to do what he did.

Obama's just having a senseless party - he's not taking this seriously and I personally feel he doesn't give a flying ****.
At least Bush was affected by his decisions - Obama's quite happy to make jokes about it all.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
It seems like this is just confirming pre-existing policy. What do you expect from statist government? Whether it's R or D makes no difference. The brilliance of a two party system is that you can always attack the policies of the previous administration while simultaneously using them.

Also, most people don't know it, but most cell phones made in the past 7-8 years can have their microphones activated remotely. I learned about this in China. When we used to honestly talk about the Communists and the politics of China, we would take our batteries out of the phones (the only way to truly disable it). I comforted myself with the knowledge that it was just in China, but when I got home I found out that the same mechanism exists here.

We really have no knowledge of the true extent to which we may be monitored. If the warrantless factor is supported, then it will enable government to do any number of other things in secret.

This must be fought.
Click to expand...
You will never know you're being monitored, warrant or not.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
:rofl
At least Bush had legitimate reasons to do what he did.

Obama's just having a senseless party - he's not taking this seriously and I personally feel he doesn't give a flying ****.
At least Bush was affected by his decisions - Obama's quite happy to make jokes about it all.
Click to expand...

I could say the same thing about Bush. :mrgreen:
 
kansaswhig said:
Well, I'm not doing anything wrong, so what would I be worried about?
Click to expand...

So you would have no problem with the police kicking in your door, ransacking your house, and searching through your private papers?

After all, you haven't done anything illegal.

If you are going to give up part your 4th amendment rights, you might as well make it quick and give them up all at the same time.
 
Redress said:
This lefty says it's probably wrong. With a warrant, yes, without, I do not like it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind it. If I don't want to be tracked, I will simply remove the battery from my cell phone. Let the "authoritahs" run around in circles, not knowing where in their ant farm I am. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
I don't mind it. If I don't want to be tracked, I will simply remove the battery from my cell phone. Let the "authoritahs" run around in circles, not knowing where in their ant farm I am. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I thought removing the battery didn't make a difference, correct me if I'm wrong.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I thought removing the battery didn't make a difference, correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Without the battery, it will never send a signal to a tower.
 
danarhea said:
Without the battery, it will never send a signal to a tower.
Click to expand...
As opposed to just turning the cell phone off? If the cellphone is merely turned off if can still be tracked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom