• 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!

Cell Phone Data & Murder & Right To Privacy

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,901
Reaction score
19,307
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)

New Castle County Police detectives had tools that family members did not. Less than a month later, they arrested Benjamin G. Rauf, 28, in the murder of his Temple Law School classmate.

The case came together quickly. First, cellphone location data showed Rauf was in the area of the shooting. Then, a handgun found in Rauf's Albany, New York-area apartment matched a cartridge from the crime scene. On his phone, police found internet searches for such topics as "state extradition for murder."

it has been on hold awaiting a ruling over how police access citizens' cellphone data.

That decision, Carpenter v. United States, came down in June and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" before retrieving cell phone location data as part of an investigation.

That ruling may bolster the defense's effort to have most of the evidence against Rauf thrown out.

So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?
 
So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

Well, there's a bigger problem here. Cell phone data is not trustworthy:

(N)umerous experts and telecommunications workers say the FBI analysis techniques are wrong: Cellphone signals do not always use the closest tower when in use but instead are routed by a computerized switching center to the tower that best serves the phone network based on a variety of factors. In addition, the range of cell towers varies greatly, and tower ranges overlap significantly, and the size and shape of a tower’s range shifts constantly, experts say.

“It’s not really junk science, it’s misinterpreted science,” said forensic expert Larry Daniel of Raleigh, N.C., who has consulted and testified for the prosecution and the defense in numerous cases, including a capital murder case in Fayetteville, N.C., where police claimed the cell-tower data showed a man was at the crime scene. “It is useful and can be used. But in the hands of a novice, this is dangerous science.”

...

“It is not possible,” Daniel said, “for anyone to reliably determine the particular coverage area of a cell-tower antenna after the fact based solely on historical cell-tower location data or call-detail records.” He said weather, time of day, types of equipment and technology, and call traffic all affect an antenna’s range.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...s-use-of-cellphone-records-can-be-inaccurate/
 
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)





So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?

Not. There does not seem to be any probable cause to assume that a single case (as opposed to a series of related serial cases) would justify undertaking such a 'fishing expedition'.
 
I am opposed to warrantless surveillance, I don't care how much easier it makes their job; all civil rights hinder law enforcement in that way.

I am also opposed to being forced to unlock ones device.
 
In this day and age of cell phones, it's kinda silly for police not have any access to your data whatsoever. If they have probable cause that your data might contain evidence, then they get a warrent for it.
 
In this day and age of cell phones, it's kinda silly for police not have any access to your data whatsoever. If they have probable cause that your data might contain evidence, then they get a warrent for it.

Yeah, **** the 4th Amendment, both its spirit and letter.

Oh wait, Congress already did that, 15 years ago, with the USA Unpatriot Act.
 
Yeah, **** the 4th Amendment, both its spirit and letter.

Oh wait, Congress already did that, 15 years ago, with the USA Unpatriot Act.

I agree.

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.
 
get a warrant.
 
At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?
I don't see why it should be treated different to any other personal information. I do think some of the privacy campaigners are using the emotional attachment so many people seem to have with their phones and obviously defence lawyers will try anything to get their client off.

In this case it really just seems to be that the police had identified the last person to speak to the victim on the phone so obviously they're going to want to know where that person was at the time of the murder. I don't see any difference whether they get that from phone data, CCTV cameras, eye-witnesses or any other source of information. As long as they get the appropriate warrants and treat the evidence for what it is (e.g. prove of presence doesn't equal proof of murder) it shouldn't pose any issue.
 
I don't see why it should be treated different to any other personal information. I do think some of the privacy campaigners are using the emotional attachment so many people seem to have with their phones and obviously defence lawyers will try anything to get their client off.

In this case it really just seems to be that the police had identified the last person to speak to the victim on the phone so obviously they're going to want to know where that person was at the time of the murder. I don't see any difference whether they get that from phone data, CCTV cameras, eye-witnesses or any other source of information. As long as they get the appropriate warrants and treat the evidence for what it is (e.g. prove of presence doesn't equal proof of murder) it shouldn't pose any issue.

The trouble is, this is not always done.
 
The trouble is, this is not always done.
That's true of anything though. My point is that phone data shouldn't be any different to any other kind of personal information needed for evidence.
 
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)





So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?


I think a warrant should be necessary.
 
Yeah, **** the 4th Amendment, both its spirit and letter.

Oh wait, Congress already did that, 15 years ago, with the USA Unpatriot Act.

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

I stated that in today's society where everybody is on their phones, it's silly to say that the police can't access the phones, thus making the motive reasonable. I also stated that if the police had probable cause then they should be able to get a warrent. Now tell me again how what I said violates the 4th amendment.
 
Well, there's a bigger problem here. Cell phone data is not trustworthy:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...s-use-of-cellphone-records-can-be-inaccurate/

Its scary, if someone knows how to spoof on a genius level they could walk around pretending to be other people and basically play god. But I assume the FBI and stuff has some insane techies we dont know about that probably dry-spy on every single genius coder out there. And every year as technology grows spoofers and hackers ascend higher up this godlike scale. Thankfully most geniuses are altruistic in nature.


Its also scary to think there are trainer spy programs out there that basic darknet people will have access to that completely compromise the lamen who knows nothing about this secret world. And that cops can turn around and just point data interception stuff randomly to whatever house they want if they decide to take it in their own hands.

I assume every camera I have is potentially watched because its basically the wild west, anyone can just go pay a hacker 10 bucks and now they are spying on you. We need some INSANE anti-hacking laws like if you get caught watching someoens webcam or phone cam without permission they just lock you away for 20 years. Or 5 years if you agree to never touch technology again.
 
Last edited:
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)





So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?

A couple points:

1. Most murderers should know to turn their cell phone off when killing someone. Duh.

2. If the cops did a ping search off of a tower near the crime scene to develop a list of possible suspects, I have no qualms with them using that data.

3. If the cops have a suspect and violate his privacy by pulling his private records to see which towers he pinged off of, doing it without a warrant, I do have an issue with it.
 
I agree.

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.

If a murder has occurred, a life of a fellow citizen has been taken (which means the egregious commission of a violation of rights, some perp has been proven to be fully capable of stepping over that line AND may do so again) then it would be reasonable to search a viable suspect's phone data records.

Information found CAN, often is, also be exculpatory.

The evidence would be placed along side other circumstantial evidence to either find one more innocent or more guilty... up to the jury.
 
If a murder has occurred, a life of a fellow citizen has been taken (which means the egregious commission of a violation of rights, some perp has been proven to be fully capable of stepping over that line AND may do so again) then it would be reasonable to search a viable suspect's phone data records.

Information found CAN, often is, also be exculpatory.

The evidence would be placed along side other circumstantial evidence to either find one more innocent or more guilty... up to the jury.

Not without a warrant.
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrents shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.

I stated that in today's society where everybody is on their phones, it's silly to say that the police can't access the phones, thus making the motive reasonable. I also stated that if the police had probable cause then they should be able to get a warrent. Now tell me again how what I said violates the 4th amendment.

"It's silly to say the police can't access the phones..." makes it a reasonable search? Clearly you've never read the Olmstead case in the last century. Your legal reasoning is typical for a poster who can't spell warrant, so I understand. Man alive, we SO have the government we deserve.
 
"It's silly to say the police can't access the phones..." makes it a reasonable search?

I said "making the motive reasonable" just like how everybody used to write things down on paper makes wanting access to the papers reasonable. Also did you not read the rest of my post? I clearly stated that if the police have probable cause then they shoukd get a warrant. So what are you complaining about? Are you saying that police can never access phone data even if they have a warrant?
Clearly you've never read the Olmstead case in the last century. Your legal reasoning is typical for a poster who can't spell warrant, so I understand. Man alive, we SO have the government we deserve.

If a spelling error is enough to dismiss an entire argument then we certainly do live in strange times.

EDIT TO ADD: admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the Olmstead case. So I googled it and came up with this:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmstead_v._L.C.

If this is what you're talking about then I fail to see the relevance of not requiring the mentally ill to be institutionized to the discussion of whether the police should have access to our cell phone data.
 
Last edited:
I said "making the motive reasonable" just like how everybody used to write things down on paper makes wanting access to the papers reasonable. Also did you not read the rest of my post? I clearly stated that if the police have probable cause then they shoukd get a warrant. So what are you complaining about? Are you saying that police can never access phone data even if they have a warrant?


If a spelling error is enough to dismiss an entire argument then we certainly do live in strange times.

No, I say the police can access phone data (a very broad term) when a crime has been committed and it can be shown to a neutral judge (is that an oxymoron?) in the application for warrant.

The "stingrays" in widespread use today utterly violate the 4th and are really just fishing expeditions for cops with no respect for the notion of privacy.

As for spelling, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Your argument that the cops can do as they please is simply an appeal to authority, nothing more. It demonstrates either ignorance or complete disregard for the rule of law. Yes, I know, the rule of law in this country today is dead in the water.
 
No, I say the police can access phone data (a very broad term) when a crime has been committed and it can be shown to a neutral judge (is that an oxymoron?) in the application for warrant.

Which is what I stated from the beginning.
The "stingrays" in widespread use today utterly violate the 4th and are really just fishing expeditions for cops with no respect for the notion of privacy.

I'm fine with them as long as they have a warrant.
As for spelling, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I have no argument over whether my spelling is correct. Between fat fingers typing on a phone to lack of spellcheck on a PC, mistakes will be made. My objection is you saying that because I can't spell, I know nothing on the subject and thus dismissing my argument. That is faulty at best and down right intellectually lazy at worst. Deal with the topic at hand, not whether I can spell "warrant."
Your argument that the cops can do as they please is simply an appeal to authority, nothing more.
That's an outright lie. I specifically stated that if they have a warrant, they should be able to search your phone. A warrant requires probable cause. Probable cause requires sustantial evidence. Substanial evidence that can't be made up by the whim of the officer.
It demonstrates either ignorance or complete disregard for the rule of law. Yes, I know, the rule of law in this country today is dead in the water.

Your accusation demostrates either lack of reading comprehension or dishonesty. Like I said, I'm fine with it as long as they have a warrant.
 
Which is what I stated from the beginning.


I'm fine with them as long as they have a warrant.


I have no argument over whether my spelling is correct. Between fat fingers typing on a phone to lack of spellcheck on a PC, mistakes will be made. My objection is you saying that because I can't spell, I know nothing on the subject and thus dismissing my argument. That is faulty at best and down right intellectually lazy at worst. Deal with the topic at hand, not whether I can spell "warrant."

That's an outright lie. I specifically stated that if they have a warrant, they should be able to search your phone. A warrant requires probable cause. Probable cause requires sustantial evidence. Substanial evidence that can't be made up by the whim of the officer.


Your accusation demostrates either lack of reading comprehension or dishonesty. Like I said, I'm fine with it as long as they have a warrant.

The stingrays arent shelved in a restricted no-access zone and warrent = 1 time use. They can just take them out and break the law and spy on you whenever they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom