RSS
What Should Be Allowed When It Comes To Mobile Phone Snooping?
from the unclear-rules dept
When you use your mobile phone, you are revealing data to your mobile operator about where you are, and who you're calling or being called by. That, obviously, can be interesting information for folks in law enforcement -- but the rules over what it takes to access that data are extremely unclear. That's resulted in the government often filing requests for such data in a variety of different courts until they found a judge who would say okay (after a bunch of judges ridiculed the requests). All of this follows the FBI promising that such data would never be used for tracking, when laws were put in place concerning the collection of this data. Now, however, those in the industry are getting concerned about all of these requests and the complete lack of clear rules. So, they're asking Congress to step in and clarify what's expected of them when law enforcement asks for phone usage data. The article includes the inevitable quote from a law professor who doesn't understand why this is an issue at all: "What's all the fuss? The government has legitimate reasons to follow people. This is the technology law enforcement needs to use to get probable cause to search you, arrest you and throw you in jail." Right, and we're sure this data has never been misused, right? Next he'll be saying that old standard, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
18 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Snoop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Networking: The network is 'aware'
Experts at Gartner Inc., the IT research consultancy, indicate that by 2010 at least 40 percent of U.S. companies will have completely integrated their entire voice and data networks into a single network, and 95 percent of all large and mid-size firms will have at least started the process to do so. By Gene Koprowski
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Privacy Vs Security
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snoop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snoop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snoop
Amendment IV 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 your government agency cannot show clear probable cause, as laid out above, they have no business snooping, national security be damned. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is squeaky clean. Not you, not me, not your dear, sweet grandmother. Not on your life. If a sufficiently motivated government agent were allowed to spy on you unrestrained by the 4th amendment, you can be sure he could find enough questionable material to lock you under the jail. Grandma, too.
The 4th is meant to be an impediment to law enforcement, because the alternative is tyranny. I believe this completely and wholeheartedly, and I believe those who would circumvent this, or any, constitutional protection are more of a threat to the American people, our structures, and our systems of justice, than a thousand Osamas could ever hope to be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snoop
You do not think for yourself like you claim to.
For example......
I am entitled as is every American to my privacy. That includes who I talk to, or where I talk to them from.
The laws need to be defined much more clearly for our protection. People, like you, need to quit giving up our constitutional rights just because someone (BUSH) says it is for national security.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snoop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snooping
End of story and bye-bye civil rights.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privacy Vs Security
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The only security this protects is the security of the people in office against anyone they dislike or fear.
So the ruling political party should be allowed to snoop on the competition? The police should be allowed to snoop on their blackmail victims, err, I mean suspects? You think this isn't happening? Won't happen? How will you know? They sure as hell aren't even letting us know who they're investiagting, and they're doing their damndest to prevent judges from knowing or even being able to say 'no'.
The biggest threat to americans are the people who use the cover of 'protection' to secure their own corrupt power.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snoop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snoop
Human beings are a naturally paranoid bunch. Let's go ahead and open up the flood gates to fuel that paranoia by making it legal for [unknown persons] to not only track your location, but your conversations (any of which could be deemed suspicious by an agent who was having a bad day)
Why don't you just install a webcam in your face so you can be tracked, watched, listened to, and logged like a robot clone?
I suppose you go along with the property seizure laws which are also ludicrous and unconstitutional.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Privacy Vs Security
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment