- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned.
Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.
Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.
One well-known type of this surveillance equipment is known as a Stingray, an innovative way for law enforcement to track cellphones used by suspects and gather evidence. The equipment tricks cellphones into identifying some of their owners' account information, like a unique subscriber number, and transmitting data to police as if it were a phone company's tower. That allows police to obtain cellphone information without having to ask for help from service providers, such as Verizon or AT&T, and can locate a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message.
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-pushing-local-cops-stay-174613067.html;_ylt=AwrBJR4e65lTwmEAb7zQtDMD
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:
He is getting to the bottom.. His unabashedly liberal administration is getting to the bottom meaning they're attempting to complete all the civilian cellphone sweeps. You have to interpret BO's 'liberalspeak'.http://news.yahoo.com/us-pushing-local-cops-stay-174613067.html;_ylt=AwrBJR4e65lTwmEAb7zQtDMD
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:
OH there is most definitely transparency in BO's administration. The problem being is that it is only transparent to government officials. Us lowly serfs do not have the clearance required to be let in on the transparency.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-pushing-local-cops-stay-174613067.html;_ylt=AwrBJR4e65lTwmEAb7zQtDMD
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:
yes, criticize Obama for using technology to assist law enforcement
hell, y'all would even criticize him for coming up with a way to provide health care to those who are without it. waiting on that to happen
OH there is most definitely transparency in BO's administration. The problem being is that it is only transparent to government officials. Us lowly serfs do not have the clearance required to be let in on the transparency.
yes, criticize Obama for using technology to assist law enforcement
hell, y'all would even criticize him for coming up with a way to provide health care to those who are without it. waiting on that to happen
US pushing local cops to stay mum on surveillance
So they're still up to this ****. I thought Obama was getting to the bottom of this business. :roll:
Hell yes I'm going to criticize anyone that wants to use technology to invade peoples privacy without a warrant.
The only transparency in America is the American citizens are losing their privacy under the watchful eye of the federal govt.
people have the ability to refrain from using media which is easily intercepted
no one is breaking into your home without a warrant
we are posting on what was originally a defense messaging system. feel free not to use it
fell free not to say things that are publicly transmitted, if you are concerned they could be intercepted
you have no 'right' not to have such media intercepted outside of your home
the administration should be criticized if it refused to use advanced technologies to keep our nation safe from evil doers, at home and abroad
noDoing so limits people in how they communicate. Which is a free speech issue.
you mentioned the need for a warrant. for what other location would you have a search warrant required and what Constitutional protections exist to support such a warrant outside one's domicile or facility owned by the person subject to the searchStrawman. Where did I meantion this? No where.
what causes you to believe that information you place in an internet system you do not own and control and/or information you place in a phone communications system you do not own in control should be exempt from examination when you have placed that information there of your own free willWrong. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to cell phones, just as much of an expectation of privacy as a land wire. Just because there is the technology to intercept a cell phones data and that it is easy to use and hence easy to get ahold of such data does not mean that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is quite easy to intercept land line phone conversations also. Particularly since most phones now adays are wireless and you can carry them all around your house.
Its sickening that anyone would try to defend this kind of crap.
you do not own the internet or the phone system. the search cannot be conducted without the OWNER's consent. you are **** out of luck, not being the owner. so, if you want to retain your privacy, do NOT willingly place your information in the network owned by anotherAbroad I don't care. At home, hell yes they should be criticized. But not for refusing to use it, or even for using it. They should be criticized for using it without warrants. I have no problem with them using it to catch criminals. So long as they get a warrant per the Constitution.
no
people choose whether to expose sensitive information or not
and if you expose it over a publically accessible network, then there is no reasonable expectation that your privacy would be protected
One well-known type of this surveillance equipment is known as a Stingray, an innovative way for law enforcement to track cellphones used by suspects and gather evidence. The equipment tricks cellphones into identifying some of their owners' account information, like a unique subscriber number, and transmitting data to police as if it were a phone company's tower. That allows police to obtain cellphone information without having to ask for help from service providers, such as Verizon or AT&T, and can locate a phone without the user even making a call or sending a text message.
you mentioned the need for a warrant. for what other location would you have a search warrant required and what Constitutional protections exist to support such a warrant outside one's domicile or facility owned by the person subject to the search
what causes you to believe that information you place in an internet system you do not own and control and/or information you place in a phone communications system you do not own in control should be exempt from examination when you have placed that information there of your own free will
you do not own the internet or the phone system. the search cannot be conducted without the OWNER's consent. you are **** out of luck, not being the owner. so, if you want to retain your privacy, do NOT willingly place your information in the network owned by another
Phones are not publically accessible. The equipment that we are talking about in this thread trick phones into sending out information that the owner never tried or wanted to send out.
That is NOT willingly giving out information and it is not information that people casually talk about on the phone. So stop trying to spin this into something else.
Warrents are used for more than just houses. They're used to search vehicles, files on labtops, cellphones etc etc. They even need a warrant to search your person unless they have reasonable suspicion of immediate need to do so, such as when they arrest someone. They cannot just go up to someone on the street and search them for no reason other than the person looks suspicious.
Again, we're not talking about the internet. We're talking about cell phones. Again, stop the strawmans.
I own the phone. Which is what this thread is about. information being taken from phones. And btw, the police and the government do not own the phone systems either. Which means that they still need a warrant.
Technically correct, but rather naïve, IMO.
They "need" a warrant? Well, yes, they do, but vast amounts of empirical evidence shows they do not bother to get one, and the highest court in the country rather supports this common practice, including the thread subject.
you believe it is not possible to intercept your conversation/text ... then you should not be worried about something which you tell us cannot happenPhones are not publically accessible.
quite a trick. you volunteer to share your information over a network which is not owned or controlled by you. and then you object because that communication gets intercepted without your permissionThe equipment that we are talking about in this thread trick phones into sending out information that the owner never tried or wanted to send out.
that forum member only shared how your phone calls can be intercepted. notice how you have no control over those things you do not own/control, such as the phone network. use it at your own risk - without expectation/assurance of privacyThat is NOT willingly giving out information and it is not information that people casually talk about on the phone. So stop trying to spin this into something else.
notice how in every instance, the warrant is served to access property OWNED by the person. if you don't own that which is subject to be searched, then no warrant is warrantedWarrents are used for more than just houses. They're used to search vehicles, files on labtops, cellphones etc etc. They even need a warrant to search your person unless they have reasonable suspicion of immediate need to do so, such as when they arrest someone. They cannot just go up to someone on the street and search them for no reason other than the person looks suspicious.
like the phone network, you do not own the internet system ... so no warrant should be needed to access information you have voluntarily shared over the networks owned/controlled by othersAgain, we're not talking about the internet. We're talking about cell phones. Again, stop the strawmans.
you own the phone. but NOT the network over which your information is relayedI own the phone. Which is what this thread is about. information being taken from phones.
but they do not need to issue a warrant to you - because you are NOT the owner of the networkAnd btw, the police and the government do not own the phone systems either. Which means that they still need a warrant.
yes, criticize Obama for using technology to assist law enforcement
hell, y'all would even criticize him for coming up with a way to provide health care to those who are without it. waiting on that to happen
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?