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

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Nothing over my head here, however, the US Constitution seems to be that way for you, given your posts.

 

[AlbqOwl]

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

My comment was not directed to the Congress or any political party. My comment was directed to the fact that those on the left, if they have a leftist in power, are more likely to trust government with more control over their lives than are those on the right regardless of who is in power. Thus a leftist judge is more likely to inappropriately issue his/her own law or regulation in a matter like this than is a right leaning judge.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

My comment was not directed to the Congress or any political party. My comment was directed to the fact that those on the left, if they have a leftist in power, are more likely to trust government with more control over their lives than are those on the right regardless of who is in power.

When it comes to economic issues? Sure. When it comes to privacy issues or civil liberties... Nah.
See examples such as the patriot act, domestic surveillance, flag burning, etc.

Thus a leftist judge is more likely to inappropriately issue his/her own law or regulation in a matter like this than is a right leaning judge.

Now you are building a straw man.

 

[AlbqOwl]

When it comes to economic issues? Sure. When it comes to privacy issues or civil liberties... Nah.
See examples such as the patriot act, domestic surveillance, flag burning, etc.


Now you are building a straw man.

I don't think so since you see these kinds of things from left leaning judges often and almost never from right leaning ones.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I don't think so since you see these kinds of things from left leaning judges often and almost never from right leaning ones.

So how does your logic hold the opinion that also the justices who were appointed by "right" (Republican) leaning judges voted in favor of such opinion as upheld by the court? Or do you only want to ignore such opinions?

 

[AlbqOwl]

So how does your logic hold the opinion that also the justices who were appointed by "right" (Republican) leaning judges voted in favor of such opinion as upheld by the court? Or do you only want to ignore such opinions?

I have no idea what you're asking here. Can you clarify? And it doesn't matter who appoints the judges and justices. If they are predisposed to lean left they will. If they are predisposed to lean right they will.

I just want judges and justices who interpret the existing law instead of make law. Where the law is silent then also the court should be silent. I don't think that's asking too much.

 

[Renae]

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





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?

-

Use a flip phone with minimal service if that.

 

[natsb]

Nothing over my head here, however, the US Constitution seems to be that way for you, given your posts.

My post have been more than clear that this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have offered no evidence that anything unconstitutional is going on.

I am all ears. Please explain. When you volunteer to tell the whole world where your phone is, why is it unconstitutional that someone listened?

 

[ashurbanipal]

When you volunteer to tell the whole world where your phone is, why is it unconstitutional that someone listened?

The vast majority are unaware they are volunteering to tell the whole world, just the app/service with whom they've shared the information. I'm sure it's somewhere in the byzantine and lengthy user agreement, but nobody reads those, and they're written purposefully so as to make sure nobody reads them (you'd spend half your day doing so in many cases), and nobody without a J.D. really understands them. They're written with known facts about human psychology in mind. The authors know these things, write them purposefully to take advantage of them, and the result (i.e. that police can track your location without a warrant) is something that surprises most people.

This is sorta like that point brought up by another poster--imagine if, on taking the 5th amendment, you were suddenly informed that due to an old 1894 Supreme Court Ruling which has been assiduously buried under waves of false apprehensions in the media purposefully funded by powerful entities, you really have just given up your first amendment rights. Now, you might have been able to figure that out beforehand, but really, no one ever would. And now, without realizing it, you're screwed. Doesn't strike me, and shouldn't strike anyone, as very fair.

I'm not saying this is proof against this kind of ruling, just that the issues are more complicated. See my reply below to AlbqOwl.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I just want judges and justices who interpret the existing law instead of make law. Where the law is silent then also the court should be silent. I don't think that's asking too much.

This is maybe a hypothetical situation (seems to me I read about this actually having occurred, but can't swear that I'm not confusing it with some detective story--was a long time ago--and I don't have time to go looking right now):

Sometime in 1939, person A murders person B. A tells C one night over beers that A was "present" when person B was murdered. Person C is himself a suspect, though he had nothing to do with the crime. On being specifically asked if he knows anyone who was present at the murder, C repeats what A told hm to police, who direct their attention to A. They obtain a warrant, A is arrested and charged, and the other evidence against A is overwhelming--there's really no doubt A is guilty. A is convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

On appeal, A's lawyers argue that the evidence gathered against A wouldn't have been gathered without the tip provided to police by C (nobody disputes this--C is the one who tipped police to A being a strong suspect, and on this basis, the police obtain a warrant to gather evidence). A's lawyers argue that A's right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated because the police had no right to the information provided by C, and hence the evidence against A should never have been allowed in court.

What should the court decide? Statutes are silent either way. There is no precedent, but whatever the court decides will set a precedent. Is this a violation of privacy, or not? Given the strength of the evidence against A, to agree with A's lawyers would be to permit a gross miscarriage of justice. The information volunteered by C seems, intuitively, like fair game--if A didn't want anyone knowing about it, why volunteer it to C? But to disagree with A's lawyers would be to establish precedent essentially permitting the ruling that touched off this thread--though the justices making the ruling are almost certainly unaware of that given that cellphone tracking technology is unimaginable, let alone anything real.

Now, courts today look at the ruling (which was decided against A) as precedent for the principle: you have no right to privacy of information you share with a third party. That's the principle enshrined in the 1939 appellate court's ruling. So the present ruling isn't (or wouldn't be, if the above is hypothetical) making up law.

The point is not to weigh in on either side, merely to point out it's a much more complex issue than most people realize. Courts typically find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis on such issues.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I have no idea what you're asking here. Can you clarify?

That many on the right are in fact in favor of such "big brother" spying policies.... Your ignoring the fact the many of these judges on the court are right wingers and were appointed and were appointed by right wingers (Republican)....

And it doesn't matter who appoints the judges and justices.

How does it not matter? Its common knowledge that a Republican will appoint those who generally go along with that Republicans views and a Dem will generally go along with someone of their views....

If they are predisposed to lean left they will. If they are predisposed to lean right they will.

Then how do we have a way of measuring "left and right" in your opinion?

I just want judges and justices who interpret the existing law instead of make law. Where the law is silent then also the court should be silent. I don't think that's asking too much.

Sure so do I. But im arguing against your slippery slope argument and upholding it to be completely full of holes.

 

[natsb]

The vast majority are unaware they are volunteering to tell the whole world, just the app/service with whom they've shared the information. I'm sure it's somewhere in the byzantine and lengthy user agreement, but nobody reads those, and they're written purposefully so as to make sure nobody reads them (you'd spend half your day doing so in many cases), and nobody without a J.D. really understands them. They're written with known facts about human psychology in mind. The authors know these things, write them purposefully to take advantage of them, and the result (i.e. that police can track your location without a warrant) is something that surprises most people.

This is sorta like that point brought up by another poster--imagine if, on taking the 5th amendment, you were suddenly informed that due to an old 1894 Supreme Court Ruling which has been assiduously buried under waves of false apprehensions in the media purposefully funded by powerful entities, you really have just given up your first amendment rights. Now, you might have been able to figure that out beforehand, but really, no one ever would. And now, without realizing it, you're screwed. Doesn't strike me, and shouldn't strike anyone, as very fair.

I'm not saying this is proof against this kind of ruling, just that the issues are more complicated. See my reply below to AlbqOwl.

Of course it is complicated, and like you alluded to, purposely so.

As mentioned before, I am one of those geeky guys that actually reads the terms and conditions before checking the box. So I wouldn't say "nobody" reads them. )

I do agree that most people are unaware what they are volunteering too. I would also stipulate that most people that read the terms and conditions don't do so until after they hit some sort of snag.

What I don't understand from this thread, is why some people stick to their "We've been wronged by the Government" guns, even after the facts have been pointed out. The angst clearly needs to be directed at the lawyer who authored the terms and conditions of the app they installed.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is maybe a hypothetical situation (seems to me I read about this actually having occurred, but can't swear that I'm not confusing it with some detective story--was a long time ago--and I don't have time to go looking right now):

Sometime in 1939, person A murders person B. A tells C one night over beers that A was "present" when person B was murdered. Person C is himself a suspect, though he had nothing to do with the crime. On being specifically asked if he knows anyone who was present at the murder, C repeats what A told hm to police, who direct their attention to A. They obtain a warrant, A is arrested and charged, and the other evidence against A is overwhelming--there's really no doubt A is guilty. A is convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

On appeal, A's lawyers argue that the evidence gathered against A wouldn't have been gathered without the tip provided to police by C (nobody disputes this--C is the one who tipped police to A being a strong suspect, and on this basis, the police obtain a warrant to gather evidence). A's lawyers argue that A's right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated because the police had no right to the information provided by C, and hence the evidence against A should never have been allowed in court.

What should the court decide? Statutes are silent either way. There is no precedent, but whatever the court decides will set a precedent. Is this a violation of privacy, or not? Given the strength of the evidence against A, to agree with A's lawyers would be to permit a gross miscarriage of justice. The information volunteered by C seems, intuitively, like fair game--if A didn't want anyone knowing about it, why volunteer it to C? But to disagree with A's lawyers would be to establish precedent essentially permitting the ruling that touched off this thread--though the justices making the ruling are almost certainly unaware of that given that cellphone tracking technology is unimaginable, let alone anything real.

Now, courts today look at the ruling (which was decided against A) as precedent for the principle: you have no right to privacy of information you share with a third party. That's the principle enshrined in the 1939 appellate court's ruling. So the present ruling isn't (or wouldn't be, if the above is hypothetical) making up law.

The point is not to weigh in on either side, merely to point out it's a much more complex issue than most people realize. Courts typically find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis on such issues.

It is also interesting that the courts are sooooo picky about observing that concept--a concept that was never written into any law--but some are so quick to deviate from the actual law that they don't like.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That many on the right are in fact in favor of such "big brother" spying policies.... Your ignoring the fact the many of these judges on the court are right wingers and were appointed and were appointed by right wingers (Republican)....


How does it not matter? Its common knowledge that a Republican will appoint those who generally go along with that Republicans views and a Dem will generally go along with someone of their views....


Then how do we have a way of measuring "left and right" in your opinion?


Sure so do I. But im arguing against your slippery slope argument and upholding it to be completely full of holes.

IMO no competent debate judge would accept your ad hominem argument as competent against my 'slippery slope argument.' You would have lost a lot of points here. Want to try again?

 

[Beaudreaux]

My post have been more than clear that this has nothing to do with the Constitution. You have offered no evidence that anything unconstitutional is going on.

I am all ears. Please explain. When you volunteer to tell the whole world where your phone is, why is it unconstitutional that someone listened?

I quoted the parts of the US Constitution involved here. Your inability to comprehend that is not my fault.

What part of privacy agreement and privacy policy with the app company did you not understand? No one is volunteering to tell the whole world where their phone is.

 

[natsb]

I quoted the parts of the US Constitution involved here. Your inability to comprehend that is not my fault.

Yes, you did. And I proved that the parts you referenced are moot. No, my inability to comprehend is not your fault, but clearly your inability is. There is no need to get nasty here, a civil conversation is usually the most helpful.

What part of privacy agreement and privacy policy with the app company did you not understand? No one is volunteering to tell the whole world where their phone is.

Like I said, I read the things. Since you apparently do not, I will bring an example to your attention.

From Yelp's privacy policy:

We may collect and store information about you when you use the Service. We use the information to fulfill your requests, provide the Service’s functionality, improve the Service’s quality, personalize your experience, track usage of the Service, provide feedback to third party businesses that are listed on the Service, display relevant advertising, market the Service, provide customer support, message you, back up our systems and allow for disaster recovery, enhance the security of the Service, and comply with legal obligations.

Among the information we collect, please note:
<snip>
f: Activity: We may store information about your use of the Service, such as your search activity, the pages you view, the date and time of your visit, businesses you call using our mobile applications, and reservations and purchases you make through the Service. We also may store information that your computer or mobile device provides to us in connection with your use of the Service, such as your browser type, type of computer or mobile device, browser language, IP address, mobile carrier, phone number, unique device identifier, advertising identifier, location (including geolocation, beacon based location, and GPS location), and requested and referring URLs. You may be able to disallow our use of certain location data through your device or browser settings, for example by disabling “Location Services” for the Yelp application in iOS privacy settings.

As you can see, you are volunteering to let them share the information with whatever third parties they want to market too, and legal authorities. They even take the time to let you know how to stop the collection of location services.

Now lets take a look at one of the sections specifically listed in the "Third Parties Section".

f: Investigations: We may investigate and disclose information from or about you if we have a good faith belief that such investigation or disclosure (a) is reasonably necessary to comply with legal process and law enforcement instructions and orders, such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, judicial proceeding, or other legal process served on us; (b) is helpful to prevent, investigate, or identify possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service; or (c) protects our rights, reputation, property, or that of our users, affiliates, or the public, such as disclosures in connection with our Consumer Alerts program. If you flag or otherwise complain to Yelp about content through the Service, we may share the substance of your complaint with the contributor of that content in order to provide an opportunity for the contributor to respond.

As you can see here. The user specifically agrees to volunteer their information, which includes location, to the Government.

So, for the third time, please explain how the Government is violating your rights when you agreed to give them the information?

 

[Deuce]

I quoted the parts of the US Constitution involved here. Your inability to comprehend that is not my fault.

What part of privacy agreement and privacy policy with the app company did you not understand? No one is volunteering to tell the whole world where their phone is.

Those privacy policies state that the provider can do whatever the **** they want with that data. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yes, you did. And I proved that the parts you referenced are moot. No, my inability to comprehend is not your fault, but clearly your inability is. There is no need to get nasty here, a civil conversation is usually the most helpful.



Like I said, I read the things. Since you apparently do not, I will bring an example to your attention.

From Yelp's privacy policy:



As you can see, you are volunteering to let them share the information with whatever third parties they want to market too, and legal authorities. They even take the time to let you know how to stop the collection of location services.

Now lets take a look at one of the sections specifically listed in the "Third Parties Section".



As you can see here. The user specifically agrees to volunteer their information, which includes location, to the Government.

So, for the third time, please explain how the Government is violating your rights when you agreed to give them the information?

Nothing you quoted changes what I said. In fact, they prove what I said - that the protections of the US Constitution are still in place, such as a subpoena or warrant issued by a court. Re-read what you posted, and then you will see that they cannot just give out your information.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Those privacy policies state that the provider can do whatever the **** they want with that data. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand perfectly well, thank you. Your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Deuce]

I understand perfectly well, thank you. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Most of the time the privacy policies explicitly say they can give out the information to third parties.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Most of the time the privacy policies explicitly say they can give out the information to third parties.

For limited purposes, not just for ****s and giggles. Read what they say. They can't give the data to the government unless the government complies with the US Constitution. Even the passages that natsb quoted said as much.

 

[csense]

When you volunteer to tell the whole world where your phone is, why is it unconstitutional that someone listened?

The Constitutional question isn't that someone listened.
The Constitutional question is whether the State can compel those listeners, be it the world or Jim and the twelve bystanders, to reveal that information without a warrant.

 

[natsb]

The Constitutional question isn't that someone listened.
The Constitutional question is whether the State can compel those listeners, be it the world or Jim and the twelve bystanders, to reveal that information without a warrant.

As demonstrated by the ruling, and shown in the Yelp example I previously posted, a warrant is not required. When the terms and conditions box is checked off, permission is given.

I am as against Government intrusion as the next conservative, but I also insist on being fair. If a phone user does not want the phone's location known, then their beef is with the app and the app's terms and conditions; not the Government. If one does not want the Government to have access to location services without a warrant, the answer is simple... Turn it off. With location services turned off, the Government will need a warrant to get the information. The power is yours.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

IMO no competent debate judge would accept your ad hominem argument as competent against my 'slippery slope argument.' You would have lost a lot of points here. Want to try again?

Thats the best response you can fathom?

 

[ashurbanipal]

What I don't understand from this thread, is why some people stick to their "We've been wronged by the Government" guns, even after the facts have been pointed out. The angst clearly needs to be directed at the lawyer who authored the terms and conditions of the app they installed.

Well, of course it is government that is appropriating the data, so it seems quite legitimate for some ire to be directed at government.

The deeper problem is that--and maybe I'm reading something in--your position seems to be based on a principle that government should have nothing to do with freely chosen contracts between businesses and private citizens, especially when businesses straight-up tell people what they plan to do. However, we've seen the results of following this principle unadulterated, and they're not good. Businesses have as much power (at least) as government in day-to-day life. In our economy, we rely on businesses to distribute needed goods and services, and without something filling that role, society would collapse entirely. Whatever fills that role must be regulated, and no principle of individual freedom is as important as that.

With regard specifically to this issue, one of the legitimate uses of regulation is to prevent businesses from playing dirty tricks on customers...which (at least some) businesses have shown time and time again they're usually willing to do to make a buck. The lawyer you speak of works for a business and takes his/her direction from that business.

This is not to say I don't recognize you have a point--you do. But something about this case seems subtly different from the case of A telling C casually that A has murdered B, and then C telling that to the police. I'm not sure I can quite put my finger on it yet.