• 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

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,085
Reaction score
33,411
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST
by Declan McCullagh

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
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.
Click to expand...
Okay lefties, what say you now? Is it still wrong?
 
Redress said:
This lefty says it's probably wrong. With a warrant, yes, without, I do not like it.
Click to expand...

I, for one, appreciate your honesty. I don't like it either. I'll even go so far as to say I wouldn't like it even if a president I liked proposed it.
 
This can't possibly fly.

I'm willing to sacrifice some freedom for security, but this is a gargantuan undertaking that our Fed Govt will flub. What happened to good old intelligence operations?
 
Bad move.

I don't support cell phone tracking. Though, if they are willing to pay my cellphone bill for listening onto the conversations, then I would be more than happy to allow.
 
kansaswhig said:
This can't possibly fly.

I'm willing to sacrifice some freedom for security, but this is a gargantuan undertaking that our Fed Govt will flub. What happened to good old intelligence operations?
Click to expand...

what with cia operatives being grilled by department of justice investigators and being called liars by the speaker of the house pelosi I'm guessing they're simply too busy to be bothered with....you know......spying. :cool:
 
Last edited:
American said:
Link


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

It was wrong under Bush and it's wrong under Obama.

A scary thing is right now is all the Feds have to do is subpoena Google and they can get massive amounts of information for really almost any individual. Shopping habits, emails, GPS locations, chat logs, Phone conversations, Contacts, etc.
 
Last edited:
I still don't have a problem with it. Talking on a cell phone is no different than having a face to face conversation on the sidewalk and someone standing close enough to hear everything you say. Just like the sidewalk, if you are worried about someone hearing you, don't say it on your cell phone.
 
apdst said:
I still don't have a problem with it. Talking on a cell phone is no different than having a face to face conversation on the sidewalk and someone standing close enough to hear everything you say. Just like the sidewalk, if you are worried about someone hearing you, don't say it on your cell phone.
Click to expand...

What if you are in your house talking on your cell phone? Is that the same as talking on the sidewalk? Should land lines be tapped too? Or do just cordless phones qualify for "sidewalk" talking?
 
apdst said:
I still don't have a problem with it. Talking on a cell phone is no different than having a face to face conversation on the sidewalk and someone standing close enough to hear everything you say. Just like the sidewalk, if you are worried about someone hearing you, don't say it on your cell phone.
Click to expand...

I use my cell phone as a home phone.

When I'm talking in private with no other person around, how is that the same as a face to face conversation?
 
Bush, is that you?

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

Yet the warrantless wire taps were made legal for Obama
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I still don't have a problem with it. Talking on a cell phone is no different than having a face to face conversation on the sidewalk and someone standing close enough to hear everything you say. Just like the sidewalk, if you are worried about someone hearing you, don't say it on your cell phone.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true authoritarian. Power to the state!

Hey, does that weird logic apply to landlines?
 
Gibberish said:
What if you are in your house talking on your cell phone? Is that the same as talking on the sidewalk? Should land lines be tapped too? Or do just cordless phones qualify for "sidewalk" talking?
Click to expand...

They're not listening in on the actual call. They're only tracking the phone's location. It's not a huge invasion of my privacy if the government knows that I left my house and went to the Piggly Wiggly, then came back home.

I think you're all blowing this totally out of proportion.
 
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...

Oh, but that's different. We have to support this president, because it's--now--the patriotic thing to do.
 
apdst said:
Oh, but that's different. We have to support this president, because it's--now--the patriotic thing to do.
Click to expand...


Hooozaah

Oh, wait . . . Hoooplah

No - Hoookah. :rofl Fkit, I give up.
 
Keep in mind this is about tracking based on Numerical probability just like a scenario from the TV Show Numb3rs.

They are not looking at listening to your conversations, but that might come in the form of a warrant after the probability suggests you are now a suspect.

Everyone should be aware that there are devises available for individuals to scan the frequencies and lock in on your call any time they want.

I used to have a scanner from Radio Shack that would allow me to listen to all of the cordless phones in every house for almost a mile. It was illegal to do so, and so I never did as far as you know.

I'm surprised I didn't see the argument that the air waves are controlled and regulated by the Government and therefore thare should be no expectation of privacy.

I also want to restate for those who might have missed it before. If you text message you can delete your ability to even see a message but it stays in the Phone Company server essentially for ever, and the same is true of all E-mail. So be careful of what you say and to whom you say it, especially if you cheat on you spouse.
 
Councilman said:
Keep in mind this is about tracking based on Numerical probability just like a scenario from the TV Show Numb3rs.

They are not looking at listening to your conversations, but that might come in the form of a warrant after the probability suggests you are now a suspect.

Everyone should be aware that there are devises available for individuals to scan the frequencies and lock in on your call any time they want.

I used to have a scanner from Radio Shack that would allow me to listen to all of the cordless phones in every house for almost a mile. It was illegal to do so, and so I never did as far as you know.

I'm surprised I didn't see the argument that the air waves are controlled and regulated by the Government and therefore thare should be no expectation of privacy.

I also want to restate for those who might have missed it before. If you text message you can delete your ability to even see a message but it stays in the Phone Company server essentially for ever, and the same is true of all E-mail. So be careful of what you say and to whom you say it, especially if you cheat on you spouse.
Click to expand...

Ah - no, this is actual data - prospective or retrospective. Prospective is quite accurate and is updated minute-to-minute.

If it was just based on something such as is numbers (a nerd calculated probabilities) then it wouldn't be permissible in court.

It's not the government's business where I am. :shrug: They don't tag their own soldiers - why tag civilians in such a manner or presume it's in their right to do so?

If I've done something wrong, sure, but otherwise - no.
 
On the surface, this is absurd.

It does make you wonder what might really be going on in the world, how close we could be to another catastrophic terror attack, how much intel they have to something truly gruesome on the horizon, just what they know that we don't.......we just don't know. (There's a reason Obama kept Gates once he found out the truth of all this.)

But I can't support this fundamentally at all.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Ah - no, this is actual data - prospective or retrospective. Prospective is quite accurate and is updated minute-to-minute.

If it was just based on something such as is numbers (a nerd calculated probabilities) then it wouldn't be permissible in court.

It's not the government's business where I am. :shrug: They don't tag their own soldiers - why tag civilians in such a manner or presume it's in their right to do so?

If I've done something wrong, sure, but otherwise - no.
Click to expand...

Did the story not say they used like numbers used at locations where robberies took place? That makes it a probability study and gives them numbers to track based on the proximity to the banks and relative times.
 
Any true liberal will be against this. It violates our constitutional right to privacy, like the patriot act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom