• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Court Ruling Threatens Liberty, Empowers Leftie Totalitarian Abuse of Citizens.

Kurmugeon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
6,147
Reaction score
2,002
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A lovely little turn of events which will have far reaching Government Authority Abuse outcomes:

Police don't need warrant for your phone location data, court finds - CNET

[h=1]Police don't need warrant for your phone location data, court finds[/h]The ruling ends a split between the courts on whether asking a company for location data provided by users requires a warrant.

by Luke Lancaster May 31, 2016

The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that police asking a company to provide phone location data offered up by users does not represent a search under the Fourth Amendment and can be done without a warrant.

It's commonplace for many apps to request access to your location data, and the ruling was based on an earlier Supreme Court precedent that information volunteered to a third party is fair game.


Judge Wynn, a dissenting voice on the court, mirrored the concerns of privacy advocates:


"Only time will tell whether our society will prove capable of preserving age-old privacy protections in this increasingly networked era. But one thing is sure: this Court's decision today will do nothing to advance that effort."



So, Why do I care if the Cops know where my Cell Phone Goes? If I am following the Law, who Cares? Right?


Well.......

If they can search you without cause or even your knowledge that the search was performed, then they can use that information in abusive ways!

You would be assuming that if the Police can do a thing, that only GOOD COPS are going to be using it!

Obama, Louis Lerner, Eric Holder, Jon Gruber, and Loretta Lynch has taught U.S. there is NOTHING beneath the Left!

What if the Radical Lefties want a List of WHO supports the TEA Patriots?

Easy enough to search cell records for who went to a Rally, based on cell phone location records.

Easy enough to find out who visits Gun Stores.

Easy enough to find out who attends Christian Mass.

Easy enough to find out who Does NOT go to Gay Bars.

Easy enough to find out who shows up to VOTE.

And then use and abuse that Knowledge to persecute their political ENEMIES.


If a thing can be done, the Lefties will figure out a way to abuse it for their increase in POWER!

------------------------------------------------------------


So... What to do about it?

Here's a start:

Put your phone in Airplane mode.

Turn off the Location based Services.

Use a location faker piece of software to make it appear that you never leave the house.

If you pull jury duty, refuse to convict any person who was investigated using warrant-less location information.

Vote out any judge who allows warrant-less location information to be used in his/her court.



Question for Debate:

What will YOU do about the new abuse of Power and Violation of your Constitutional Rights?

-
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The amount of faulty slippery slope and partisan interpretation of a confirmation bias going on in this post is really quite astounding.

As for the "new abuse," I won't be doing anything other than waiting to see if the Supreme Court takes up this case and then listening to their decision on the issue. In the meantime, I will continue to use my cell phone for a variety of nefarious deeds like "not going to a gay bar."

:lamo
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
What does this have to do with "lefties"? Im a leftie and am against the surveillance state.....
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,870
Reaction score
16,507
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So... What to do about it?

Here's a start:

Put your phone in Airplane mode.

Turn off the Location based Services.

Use a location faker piece of software to make it appear that you never leave the house.

If you pull jury duty, refuse to convict any person who was investigated using warrant-less location information.

Vote out any judge who allows warrant-less location information to be used in his/her court.
That last part may not be that easy. I am not sure there is a projectvotesmart or ontheissues for judges.
 

Kurmugeon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
6,147
Reaction score
2,002
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That last part may not be that easy. I am not sure there is a projectvotesmart or ontheissues for judges.

Which is WHY I bring the subject to a forum for debate.

As I stated, my List is a quick collection of possible actions. Not a thorough, reviewed, and well considered action plan.

-
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What does this have to do with "lefties"? Im a leftie and am against the surveillance state.....

I believe that. And I'm not sure this is a left/right issue in itself. But somebody up there cited the 'faulty' slippery slope analogy. Indeed the slippery slope argument can be flawed and is included among the lengthy list of fallacious arguments. But the slippery slope concept can also be entirely valid, and indeed the OP makes a compelling argument for how valid use of phone data by law enforcement can also translate to uses none of us would consider valid. While it is a powerful tool for valid use for a good cop, at the same time it provides the same tool to government in general--Homeland security, FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA, postal inspectors, etc. Few government agencies do not have some sort of enforcement division.

So where is the balance? Is the argument for empowering law enforcement to enforce the law? (That would more often come down as a rightwing position.) Or is the argument for more power for government overall to regulate more of our lives. (That would be a leftwing position.)

And indeed that which is used honorably and for good can absolutely also be used by those with an ax to grind, a political opponent to trip up, a critic to punish, a movement to discredit, etc.

Do we want government empowered to track our every movement in this high tech age?
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I believe that. And I'm not sure this is a left/right issue in itself. But somebody up there cited the 'faulty' slippery slope analogy. Indeed the slippery slope argument can be flawed and is included among the lengthy list of fallacious arguments. But the slippery slope concept can also be entirely valid, and indeed the OP makes a compelling argument for how valid use of phone data by law enforcement can also translate to uses none of us would consider valid. While it is a powerful tool for valid use for a good cop, at the same time it provides the same tool to government in general--Homeland security, FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA, postal inspectors, etc. Few government agencies do not have some sort of enforcement division.

So where is the balance? Is the argument for empowering law enforcement to enforce the law? (That would more often come down as a rightwing position.) Or is the argument for more power for government overall to regulate more of our lives. (That would be a leftwing position.)

And indeed that which is used honorably and for good can absolutely also be used by those with an ax to grind, a political opponent to trip up, a critic to punish, a movement to discredit, etc.

Do we want government empowered to track our every movement in this high tech age?

I agree with your analysis. Was just pointing out that this really is not a left/right issue in itself.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with your analysis. Was just pointing out that this really is not a left/right issue in itself.

Yes. My thought too UNTIL we get to the valid slippery slope concept. I think it is far more likely to be those on the left who will trust all of government to use such powers honorably. Much less so those on the right.
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is not a left versus right issue, it is a technical issue. When one enables location services, which is voluntary, they are giving permission to be tracked. Yes, in their mind, they only thought Uber, Yelp, or the weather app would be listening, but that is not reality.

When location services are enabled, your phone begins to squawk. It sends out a constant message indicating its location and ID. (That is why turning off location services is a good way to save battery) When someone gives permission for their phone's location and ID to be broadcast, they should not expect that information to be private.

For example, if I pull over to the busy sidewalk, roll down my window and shout to Jim: "Hey Jim, I will be parking in the Jiffy-Park lot around the corner. Be back in five minutes". I have no expectation of privacy. At least a half dozen people on the sidewalk now know where my car is and when it will be there. Sure, in my mind, I only wanted Jim to know, but that is not how reality works.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The amount of faulty slippery slope and partisan interpretation of a confirmation bias going on in this post is really quite astounding.

As for the "new abuse," I won't be doing anything other than waiting to see if the Supreme Court takes up this case and then listening to their decision on the issue. In the meantime, I will continue to use my cell phone for a variety of nefarious deeds like "not going to a gay bar."

:lamo

There was a case where the SCOTUS found that the police placing a GPS tracking device on a person's car was a violation to the 4th Amendment. I see this as possibly being overturned for similar reasons.

I disagree with the 4th Circuit's ruling in this case, and feel that the 4th Amendment covers our phone's position in space. Also, when we give permission to an app to see our position, we are doing so within the protections of the privacy protections afforded by and promised by the app's company. The government, IMHO, does not have the power to circumvent that agreement, nor to assume that our private agreement with an app company is tantamount to our relinquishing our 4th Amendment right to Privacy.

However, although I doubt it was your intention to do so, the obvious flipped and dismissive response in your post to an obvious attack on our 4th Amendment Right to Privacy by the government, actually gives proof to accusation for the OP - a QED if you will of exactly what he was describing. Well done. I'm sure the OP appreaciates such a vivid demonstration of his point... and the very first post following his.

Edit: Found the SCOTUS case for you: United States v. Jones (2012)
 
Last edited:

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you voluntarily carry around a tracking device with you, turned on, well, you're eventually going to be tracked.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you voluntarily carry around a tracking device with you, turned on, well, you're eventually going to be tracked.

That's true. However, the question here is whether the government has the power to do so without a warrant, to which they are limited and restricted by the Fourth Amendment. I drive my truck in public, and the government can follow me to see where I go, but they cannot place electronic monitoring devices on my truck because that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and my right to be "secure in [my] their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which was ruled by the SCOTUS in United States v. Jones (2012). The government can subpoena my phone records as evidence for a case, or get a search warrant to go through my phone records, or do like they can with my truck and just follow me around in public. However, my phone goes with me more places than just public places. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, but my phone goes with me to private places where there is most definitely a legal and reasonable expectation of privacy and to be secure on my person, house, papers, and effects.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
There was a case where the SCOTUS found that the police placing a GPS tracking device on a person's car was a violation to the 4th Amendment. I see this as possibly being overturned for similar reasons.

I disagree with the 4th Circuit's ruling in this case, and feel that the 4th Amendment covers our phone's position in space. Also, when we give permission to an app to see our position, we are doing so within the protections of the privacy protections afforded by and promised by the app's company. The government, IMHO, does not have the power to circumvent that agreement, nor to assume that our private agreement with an app company is tantamount to our relinquishing our 4th Amendment right to Privacy.

However, although I doubt it was your intention to do so, the obvious flipped and dismissive response in your post to an obvious attack on our 4th Amendment Right to Privacy by the government, actually gives proof to accusation for the OP - a QED if you will of exactly what he was describing. Well done. I'm sure the OP appreaciates such a vivid demonstration of his point... and the very first post following his.

Edit: Found the SCOTUS case for you: United States v. Jones (2012)

An excellent argument. But based on your argument and that presented by others, let me play devil's advocate a bit:

If there is a means to turn off the locater, then anybody who does not want to be tracked can do that. And I read recently that Google or somebody has an app that you can use to virtually transport your phone to any place in the word giving the illusion that you are there. And there were other suggestions to fool the trackers. So maybe since there is that option, if you leave your phone so that you can be tracked, you could say you are giving permission to the world to do that.

And now back to your (and my) side of the argument:

On the other hand, the locater is a tremendous safety device for those who WANT to be found should they need to be found in case of sudden illness, accident, getting lost in the woods, or whatever. And we should be able to use that service without fear of the government or anybody else unauthorized to do so tracking our every movement and recording where we go.

Then again if the technology in the movie "Enemy of the State" is really a technology, the government can track our every move anyway.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What does this have to do with "lefties"? Im a leftie and am against the surveillance state.....
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An excellent argument. But based on your argument and that presented by others, let me play devil's advocate a bit:

If there is a means to turn off the locater, then anybody who does not want to be tracked can do that. And I read recently that Google or somebody has an app that you can use to virtually transport your phone to any place in the word giving the illusion that you are there. And there were other suggestions to fool the trackers. So maybe since there is that option, if you leave your phone so that you can be tracked, you could say you are giving permission to the world to do that.

And now back to your (and my) side of the argument:

On the other hand, the locater is a tremendous safety device for those who WANT to be found should they need to be found in case of sudden illness, accident, getting lost in the woods, or whatever. And we should be able to use that service without fear of the government or anybody else unauthorized to do so tracking our every movement and recording where we go.

Then again if the technology in the movie "Enemy of the State" is really a technology, the government can track our every move anyway.

Your second point is a very good point to be made.

The first, when playing devils advocate, is similar to the argument that "if she wanted to be taken seriously, she should have dressed less provocative" or the old adage, "By the way she was dressed, she was asking for it..." Just because I have the location function on my phone turned on so I can use apps like a map and directions app, or an app that can call 911 if I'm in an accident and get me help (like you mentioned in point two) that does not mean that I wish that information about my location to be shared with others, much less the government, except possibly under extreme situations like the 911 emergency app. The government doesn't have the right to "fondle" me through my phone just because I have a "sexy" app running that gives ME my location on a map I'm using to navigate.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.

I don't care who appoints a judge. I want judges to adjudicate based on the EXISTING LAW whatever that is. Judges were never intended to make new law according to how it should be. If the law is silent on the issue of police using tracking devices on our phones, the court should also be silent and simply inform those involved that no law exists regulating that particular thing. That throws the problem back into the lap of the city or legislature or congress to come up with a law to address the matter or not. The court at ANY level should not have power to say what the law will be.
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's true. However, the question here is whether the government has the power to do so without a warrant, to which they are limited and restricted by the Fourth Amendment. I drive my truck in public, and the government can follow me to see where I go, but they cannot place electronic monitoring devices on my truck because that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and my right to be "secure in [my] their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which was ruled by the SCOTUS in United States v. Jones (2012). The government can subpoena my phone records as evidence for a case, or get a search warrant to go through my phone records, or do like they can with my truck and just follow me around in public. However, my phone goes with me more places than just public places. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, but my phone goes with me to private places where there is most definitely a legal and reasonable expectation of privacy and to be secure on my person, house, papers, and effects.

You seem to be skipping over the voluntary part. Location services are voluntary, you may turn it off any time you want. True, if the Government sneaks a tracking device onto your truck without a warrant, then the 4th has been violated. But if you voluntarily broadcast the location of your truck, the Government has violated nothing, they simply listened to what you volunteered to give away.

The same goes for the phone. It doesn't matter if you feel like you are in a private space if you have given permission to your phone to shout it out. If you don't want anyone to know you are in a private space, then don't have your phone shout it out. Your phone cannot read your mind to determine when you want privacy, you have to tell it. It is voluntary, not magic.
 

Kurmugeon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
6,147
Reaction score
2,002
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You seem to be skipping over the voluntary part. Location services are voluntary, you may turn it off any time you want. True, if the Government sneaks a tracking device onto your truck without a warrant, then the 4th has been violated. But if you voluntarily broadcast the location of your truck, the Government has violated nothing, they simply listened to what you volunteered to give away.

The same goes for the phone. It doesn't matter if you feel like you are in a private space if you have given permission to your phone to shout it out. If you don't want anyone to know you are in a private space, then don't have your phone shout it out. Your phone cannot read your mind to determine when you want privacy, you have to tell it. It is voluntary, not magic.

If I hadn't make this thread, would you, and/or most people, have known to turn off those services?

If (When) the Lefties begin using location information to ID political enemies lists, and being doing IRS audits, or EPA home-realestate-lot Wetlands designations, based on those lists, How will you KNOW it is happening.

They will know... you will NOT!

Once the Enemies Lists are created, how can they ever be removed from Democratic Party Knowledge, allowing the use of Government Officials Authority to "Reward their Friends and Punish their Enemies"?

-
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You seem to be skipping over the voluntary part. Location services are voluntary, you may turn it off any time you want. True, if the Government sneaks a tracking device onto your truck without a warrant, then the 4th has been violated. But if you voluntarily broadcast the location of your truck, the Government has violated nothing, they simply listened to what you volunteered to give away.

The same goes for the phone. It doesn't matter if you feel like you are in a private space if you have given permission to your phone to shout it out. If you don't want anyone to know you are in a private space, then don't have your phone shout it out. Your phone cannot read your mind to determine when you want privacy, you have to tell it. It is voluntary, not magic.

You seem to be assuming that a person can unknowingly and voluntarily give up a natural right, even one that is enshrined in the US Constitution. A person staying silent under the Fifth Amendment Right to remain silent does not forfeit their 1st Amendment Right to free speech by doing so. Nor does a person exercising their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Association by entering into an agreement with an app company regarding the location of their phone forfeit their Fourth Amendment Right to be Secure from Unreasonable Search or Seizure, nor does it forfeit their Fifth Amendment Right against compelled self incrimination or to remain silent regarding the government - anything said between the person's phone and the app company could be argued as hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

The status of the right is defined by the right holder, not the government. If the right holder feels, thinks, and/or believes that their protection from the government by the right still exists, then it still exists. Voluntary agreement to allow a singular person or group to know information that is protected from government seizure of that information does not give the government the power to seize the information without due process via a warrant. Especially if the information was shared under a privacy agreement where the information could not be divulged to a third party without the permission of the right holder.

Now, if the person is informed that sharing the information with the second party, automatically relinquishes their 4th Amendment Right to privacy regarding the government, then there must be notice given by the government, similar to that legally required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), also known as the Miranda Warning. Meaning, that this instance of tracking via a cell phone is protected, IMHO, by the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Yes. My thought too UNTIL we get to the valid slippery slope concept. I think it is far more likely to be those on the left who will trust all of government to use such powers honorably. Much less so those on the right.

See that argument in of itself is pretty narrow. Sure surveillance has been favored by those on the "left" (D's) and the "right" (R's), but what it really comes down to is more of privacy/civil liberties issue. Look at many of the opponents of surveillance on the left (D's)in the house:
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Thomas Barrett (WI-05)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
David Bonior (MI-10)
Rick Boucher (VA-09)
Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Mike Capuano (MA-08)
Eva Clayton (NC-01)
John Conyers (MI-14)
William Coyne (PA-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
John Dingell (MI-16)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Bob Filner (CA-50)
Barney Frank (MA-04)
Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Stephanie Jones (OH-11)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Barbara Lee (CA-09)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
James McGovern (MA-03)
Cynthia McKinney (GA-04)
Carrie Meek (FL-17)
George Miller (CA-07)
Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Allan Mollohan (WV-01)
Jerry Nadler (NY-08)
James Oberstar (MN-08)
David Obey (WI-07)
John Olver (MA-01)
Major Owens (NY-11)
Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Lynn Rivers (MI-13)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Martin Sabo (MN-05)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Mark Udall (CO-02)
Tom Udall (NM-03)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-32)
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
David Wu (OR-01)

How many Republicans in the house were against it? 3:
Bob Ney (OH-18)
Butch Otter (ID-01)
Ron Paul (TX-14)

And you got the only Senator to vote against the Patriot act in the Senate, the liberal Russ Feingold.
Who Stood for Constitutional Liberties and Voted Against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001?

And still the majority of those voting against gov surveilance whiich are similar to the Partiort Act are still D's. Sure there are some on the right who declare themsleves to be "libertarians" who vote against measure like the patriot act but they are few and far between in Congress.

Also throughout our countries history those championing against such measures of gov surveillance, press censorship, etc were actually those on the actual left, AKA the Socialist Party...

My point being, this isnt a left-right issue and the slippery slope example is still a falacy and bunk.
Russe Feingold was a champion amongst liberals being against the patriot act
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.

And the Republicans are the campions of civil liberties? You might wanna take a look at the votes of those being against measures such as the patriot act.. See post #20
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's say there is a rape in a neighborhood. Tracking shows you were in the area - bicycle, car, foot, they don't know.

You are soon sitting in front of some big cop threatening to but you in a cell with a homosexual Hells Angel if you don't cooperate.

In police work, you usually start with the closest suspect to the crime. You will also go into several federal, state, and county databases, and possibly give DNA
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If I hadn't make this thread, would you, and/or most people, have known to turn off those services?

I cannot speak for most people, but I can speak for myself. I have always known to keep the location service turned off unless I specifically need it at the moment, then I turn it off again. In full disclosure, I may not fit into the typical category. I have over 34 years of networking experience with the last 20 of them in network and systems security. On top of that, I am one of those absolute geeky guys that actually reads all of the "Terms and Conditions" before checking off the box.

I can go into pages of technical reasons to avoid location services, or explain it in layman's terms, so lets keep it simple. Location services are evil, turn them off.

If (When) the Lefties begin using location information to ID political enemies lists, and being doing IRS audits, or EPA home-realestate-lot Wetlands designations, based on those lists, How will you KNOW it is happening.

They will know... you will NOT!

Once the Enemies Lists are created, how can they ever be removed from Democratic Party Knowledge, allowing the use of Government Officials Authority to "Reward their Friends and Punish their Enemies"?

-

Uh-oh. It sounds like you don't think the list already exist. Big data already exist on everything imaginable. And big data analytics is big business. Do you think clothing chain stores just guess at what they should stock? Or do you think they pay for the information about what is trending? Have you ever thought about how free services such as google and Facebook make millions; they mine big data. Facebook can tell the clothing store exactly what colors girls between 11 and 13 like, and what fit men between 20 and 23 prefer by zip code.

And yes, big political parties buy the information too; both of them. Information is non-partisan.
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You seem to be assuming that a person can unknowingly and voluntarily give up a natural right, even one that is enshrined in the US Constitution. A person staying silent under the Fifth Amendment Right to remain silent does not forfeit their 1st Amendment Right to free speech by doing so. Nor does a person exercising their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Association by entering into an agreement with an app company regarding the location of their phone forfeit their Fourth Amendment Right to be Secure from Unreasonable Search or Seizure, nor does it forfeit their Fifth Amendment Right against compelled self incrimination or to remain silent regarding the government - anything said between the person's phone and the app company could be argued as hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

The status of the right is defined by the right holder, not the government. If the right holder feels, thinks, and/or believes that their protection from the government by the right still exists, then it still exists. Voluntary agreement to allow a singular person or group to know information that is protected from government seizure of that information does not give the government the power to seize the information without due process via a warrant. Especially if the information was shared under a privacy agreement where the information could not be divulged to a third party without the permission of the right holder.

Now, if the person is informed that sharing the information with the second party, automatically relinquishes their 4th Amendment Right to privacy regarding the government, then there must be notice given by the government, similar to that legally required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), also known as the Miranda Warning. Meaning, that this instance of tracking via a cell phone is protected, IMHO, by the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.

Sigh... Once again, the point went over your head. When you turned on the location services, and checked the "I agree to the terms and conditions" box, you volunteered to tell the world where your phone is. You gave up your right to privacy, nobody took it away. Nobody compelled you to do anything.

If you want the privacy back, then turn off the service. Stop volunteering your location; it couldn't be more simple. All the power is at your finger tips.
 

BitterPill

Ignorance Is Virtue
DP Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
737
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The amount of faulty slippery slope and partisan interpretation of a confirmation bias going on in this post is really quite astounding.

I believe the partisan interpretation you witnessed goes by the term flamebait.

I got warned against practicing such behavior, but I'm not a curmudgeon, either.
 
Top Bottom