Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    no
    people choose whether to expose sensitive information or not
    and if you expose it over a publically accessible network, then there is no reasonable expectation that your privacy would be protected
    Phones are not publically accessible. The equipment that we are talking about in this thread trick phones into sending out information that the owner never tried or wanted to send out.

    One well-known type of this surveillance equipment is known as a Stingray, an innovative way for law enforcement to track cellphones used by suspects and gather evidence. The equipment tricks cellphones into identifying some of their owners' account information, like a unique subscriber number, and transmitting data to police as if it were a phone company's tower. That allows police to obtain cellphone information without having to ask for help from service providers, such as Verizon or AT&T, and can locate a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message.
    That is NOT willingly giving out information and it is not information that people casually talk about on the phone. So stop trying to spin this into something else.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you mentioned the need for a warrant. for what other location would you have a search warrant required and what Constitutional protections exist to support such a warrant outside one's domicile or facility owned by the person subject to the search
    Warrents are used for more than just houses. They're used to search vehicles, files on labtops, cellphones etc etc. They even need a warrant to search your person unless they have reasonable suspicion of immediate need to do so, such as when they arrest someone. They cannot just go up to someone on the street and search them for no reason other than the person looks suspicious.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    what causes you to believe that information you place in an internet system you do not own and control and/or information you place in a phone communications system you do not own in control should be exempt from examination when you have placed that information there of your own free will
    Again, we're not talking about the internet. We're talking about cell phones. Again, stop the strawmans.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you do not own the internet or the phone system. the search cannot be conducted without the OWNER's consent. you are **** out of luck, not being the owner. so, if you want to retain your privacy, do NOT willingly place your information in the network owned by another
    I own the phone. Which is what this thread is about. information being taken from phones. And btw, the police and the government do not own the phone systems either. Which means that they still need a warrant.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #22
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Phones are not publically accessible. The equipment that we are talking about in this thread trick phones into sending out information that the owner never tried or wanted to send out.



    That is NOT willingly giving out information and it is not information that people casually talk about on the phone. So stop trying to spin this into something else.




    Warrents are used for more than just houses. They're used to search vehicles, files on labtops, cellphones etc etc. They even need a warrant to search your person unless they have reasonable suspicion of immediate need to do so, such as when they arrest someone. They cannot just go up to someone on the street and search them for no reason other than the person looks suspicious.



    Again, we're not talking about the internet. We're talking about cell phones. Again, stop the strawmans.



    I own the phone. Which is what this thread is about. information being taken from phones. And btw, the police and the government do not own the phone systems either. Which means that they still need a warrant.
    Technically correct, but rather nave, IMO.

    They "need" a warrant? Well, yes, they do, but vast amounts of empirical evidence shows they do not bother to get one, and the highest court in the country rather supports this common practice, including the thread subject.

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    Technically correct, but rather nave, IMO.

    They "need" a warrant? Well, yes, they do, but vast amounts of empirical evidence shows they do not bother to get one, and the highest court in the country rather supports this common practice, including the thread subject.
    Yes, I realize this.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #24
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Phones are not publically accessible.
    you believe it is not possible to intercept your conversation/text ... then you should not be worried about something which you tell us cannot happen
    The equipment that we are talking about in this thread trick phones into sending out information that the owner never tried or wanted to send out.
    quite a trick. you volunteer to share your information over a network which is not owned or controlled by you. and then you object because that communication gets intercepted without your permission
    point is, you do not own the network, and thus have no right, or expectation to privacy when using it. if you were the owner, then a warrant would and should be required. you aren't and it isn't

    That is NOT willingly giving out information and it is not information that people casually talk about on the phone. So stop trying to spin this into something else.
    that forum member only shared how your phone calls can be intercepted. notice how you have no control over those things you do not own/control, such as the phone network. use it at your own risk - without expectation/assurance of privacy

    Warrents are used for more than just houses. They're used to search vehicles, files on labtops, cellphones etc etc. They even need a warrant to search your person unless they have reasonable suspicion of immediate need to do so, such as when they arrest someone. They cannot just go up to someone on the street and search them for no reason other than the person looks suspicious.
    notice how in every instance, the warrant is served to access property OWNED by the person. if you don't own that which is subject to be searched, then no warrant is warranted

    Again, we're not talking about the internet. We're talking about cell phones. Again, stop the strawmans.
    like the phone network, you do not own the internet system ... so no warrant should be needed to access information you have voluntarily shared over the networks owned/controlled by others

    I own the phone. Which is what this thread is about. information being taken from phones.
    you own the phone. but NOT the network over which your information is relayed
    you may own a car, and a warrant would have to be issued to search it
    but just because you own the car does not mean your speed cannot be monitored while using the public highway to determine whether you are violating the law. similarly, law enforcement can monitor your communications over a network you do not own/control to assure you are not doing something illegal. both are examples of law enforcement practices for the greater good

    And btw, the police and the government do not own the phone systems either. Which means that they still need a warrant.
    but they do not need to issue a warrant to you - because you are NOT the owner of the network
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 11:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    yes, criticize Obama for using technology to assist law enforcement

    hell, y'all would even criticize him for coming up with a way to provide health care to those who are without it. waiting on that to happen
    You mean the slavery care we got? Get to work slave! Buy for others that does not want to work. Of course its unaffordable you are paying for like three other families. you moron get to work slave. yea that "healthcare"

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 11:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Simple way around this guys and gals! shut off your spy device period!!!! Turn off the service go back to a landline. or even better yet SAVE YOUR MONEY YOU ARE GOING TO NEED IT!!!!!

    Surely you didnt think Obama phones was about I love the poor. It was about we cannot spy on those that do not have cell phones!
    We cannot give brain cancer to those that dont have cell phones.
    Last edited by votemout; 06-15-14 at 02:13 PM.

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you believe it is not possible to intercept your conversation/text ... then you should not be worried about something which you tell us cannot happen
    Do you know the difference between publically accessible and going out of ones way to access something? Publically accessible is something that you can see or get to without doing anything extra. Such as taking a photo of someone walking along a sidewalk. Going out of ones way to access something is akin to going up to a window of a private home and taking pictures of what a person is doing inside. Which one do you think is legal and which one do you think is illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    quite a trick. you volunteer to share your information over a network which is not owned or controlled by you. and then you object because that communication gets intercepted without your permission
    point is, you do not own the network, and thus have no right, or expectation to privacy when using it. if you were the owner, then a warrant would and should be required. you aren't and it isn't
    No one is volunteering to have their phone data copied by the police. Not even the phone company is volunteering that information to the police. They're just taking it. Also your arguement has already been proven to be false as land lines cannot be tapped by the police without a warrant. I don't own that phone network either....yet the courts still consider it an an invasion of privacy if the police were to tap my land line without a warrant. Why do you think that is?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    that forum member only shared how your phone calls can be intercepted. notice how you have no control over those things you do not own/control, such as the phone network. use it at your own risk - without expectation/assurance of privacy
    It also showed what was collected. Like a persons account information. Do you really think that people talk about their account information all the time on the phone? When was the last time you told someone your account information on a cell phone? And again, the police do not own that information or the towers or the cell phones that they are getting this data from. You seem to quite conveinently forget that little fact. Wonder why that is................

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    notice how in every instance, the warrant is served to access property OWNED by the person. if you don't own that which is subject to be searched, then no warrant is warranted
    Except that, again, you are convienently forgetting that the information that the police are taking is not owned by the police. Even if you think that I don't own information about myself that I do not disclose to others, the information is still privately owned....by the phone company if nothing else. As such they STILL need a warrant. That information IS NOT being publicly aired. You will never be walking down the street and casually see a persons private account information being displayed floating through the air. You have to actively search for it with a device.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    like the phone network, you do not own the internet system ... so no warrant should be needed to access information you have voluntarily shared over the networks owned/controlled by others
    Do the police own those networks that are controlled by private individuals? No? Then they just cannot simply go to those servers and download that information. Your email account btw is considered private and anything on it that is less than 180 days old the police are required to get a warrant to search it. After that 180 days then they just need a subpoena. So again, you're wrong. The police just cannot simply download everything and anything that they wish.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you own the phone. but NOT the network over which your information is relayed
    Nor does the police. Those networks are privately owned. IE: They need a warrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you may own a car, and a warrant would have to be issued to search it
    but just because you own the car does not mean your speed cannot be monitored while using the public highway to determine whether you are violating the law. similarly, law enforcement can monitor your communications over a network you do not own/control to assure you are not doing something illegal. both are examples of law enforcement practices for the greater good
    Speeding is not the same as monitoring over a network. Speeding is done in the public and they do not have to invade the inside of your car to do so. In case you didn't know they use lasers to bounch a signal to your car and back. Since your car is in the public eye this is allowed. Just like photographing someone walking down the street is allowed. A communications network however is NOT public. It is owned by private individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    but they do not need to issue a warrant to you - because you are NOT the owner of the network
    But the phone company IS the owner. Since the phone company is considered a privately owned business a warrant is still required.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #28
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    Re: US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    Simple way around this guys and gals! shut off your spy device period!!!! Turn off the service go back to a landline. or even better yet SAVE YOUR MONEY YOU ARE GOING TO NEED IT!!!!!

    Surely you didnt think Obama phones was about I love the poor. It was about we cannot spy on those that do not have cell phones!
    We cannot give brain cancer to those that dont have cell phones.
    The newer digital land lines are being gathered as easily as cell phones.

    For those folks in some rural areas with old fashioned analog land lines, I don't know if they are subject to the same processes. Perhaps it depends upon who they call?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •