I miss the days when these outfits were called "telcos", which is what most are. ISP means "Internet Service Provider". That cellphones finally gained the ability to connect to the net is coincidental, yet everyone started calling AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner ISPs.
They don't provide service, for one thing. They're typical old style telcos in almost every way, a la Lily Tomlin. This story is a good example of that.
We should call these outfits "Crappy Cellphone Connectivity Providers", or CCCP.
The seller needs those and the number on the card you bought with cash. The credit card co. doesn't need your name and address. They just need the card no. to verify it's valid and stores enough money to make it a valid purchase.
As one who far prefers Scotch, I don't very much care about any of this, but agree Moosehead is certainly abusing trademark law merely for bullying protectionist reasons. If I were a beer drinker, this would make me want to try Mus just to hoist a middle finger at Moosehead.
Aside: why's anyone buying bottled beer? The empty cans are far lighter and I expect far easier to recycle. Melting that much glass vs. paper thin aluminum? Not to mention, drop a can and you pick it up. Drop a bottle, and you'll be discovering glass splinters with your feet for months/years.
Sounds like people are just jealous that they don't have the ability to pick up on the broadcasting location of the PD and prosecutor at all times.
I imagine career criminals, murderers, dope dealers, kiddie-fiddlers & etc. would love to have that sort of thing at all times.
I'm none of the above. I couldn't care less where the cops and prosecutor are until I need them. Why're they so frigging defensive about people like me that they need to stick their noses between me and my ISP without a warrant and without showing probable cause?
Are you aware that since this !@#$ started to get leaked, people now have access to apps they can run that tell them whether their box has been invaded by a Stingray? Where's that getting you? The LEOs made it easier for bad guys to hide by pulling this !@#$.
The police inserted their equipment in place of the cell tower. That goes beyond simply tapping a phone line which does require a warrant.
You'd think they'd know if they went before a judge and told them they were hunting for a murderer, s/he'd be overjoyed to sign that warrant.
So, ... I just don't get it. WTF is their problem with "get a warrant"? Do they just hate explaining themselves to anyone including judges? Well, hire some doofus lawyer to handle that for them. S/He talks to the judge and gets the warrant and you get it from him/her and bust the bastard. Smiple [sic]. C'mon guys!
"Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With 'The Rest Of The World'"
Then... can I have it?
If you're a LEO and can show probable cause, sure. If not, we'd like to speak to you and understand what you're doing trying to invade the privacy of your fellow citizens, which you've no right to do. You can start by showing us some identification; driver's license, passport, ... Understand anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law and lying to an officer of the peace is a felony punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.
It really upsets me to hear that prosecutors are trying to set such a poor precedent in order to win a case.
It really upsets me that if they get this pig to fly, it'll be open season on all of us and we'll be powerless to defend ourselves from their mistaken assumptions. Innocent until proven guilty is such an archaic concept, yes? Who needs that mouldy old thing other than obviously guilty criminals in this day and age?
Once arrested you have no rights, which is essentially true.
I beg your pardon, but that's nowhere near true. You have a right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. A fair trial includes evidence against you lawfully obtained, if necessary with a warrant signed by an (ostensibly) impartial judge. You have a right to privacy in your person and effects until a judge is convinced by the authorities of probable cause that the authorities are then allowed to invade said privacy.
I'm very much in favor of punishing convicted murderers, but come on cops! Put your back into it, ffs! You've put away (railroaded) far too many innocents over the years for us to just trust you any more. Stop cutting corners and being lazy! Do your jobs as we expect them to be done.
With probable cause, any judge will be happy to sign that warrant, so why's it such a burden for you to get them?
The last brief it filed in this criminal prosecution claimed "everyone knows" phones generate location data, therefore there's no expectation of privacy in this information.
Everyone knows other people have sex. So, should we expect privacy in our bedrooms? We all also spend time alone in bathrooms, showering, crapping, ...
How can anyone be taken at all seriously after spouting garbage like this? Why's this person still have a job? They should be in an institution if this is the best they can come up with. Society has a moral obligation to protect people like this from harming themselves.
I've never understood why anyone thought feminism made any sense. It's obviously discriminatory in favor of females, and therefore against males. It's based on stereotyping of males and females.
We are both male and female persons. Certain specific traits can often generally be ascribed to one or the other, but it's hardly something that's universal and guaranteed. A lot of it is learned behavior, not dependent upon the gender of the individual person.
It's also "reactionary" with the assumption that since women have been treated like property by males through history, it's high time we forced male dominated society to pay back. It's reverse discrimination.
When I was a kid, it was practically unheard of for a father to gain custody when a marriage broke up. Judges just assumed children were better off with their mother. That wasn't feminism that caused that. That was tradition and conservatism playing out, to the detriment of fathers and the benefit of mothers.
Inventing feminism to make up for the excesses of historical male dominance was never justified. It's a putrid sham foisted upon us by credulous psycho-babble and people who think nothing of stereotyping based on gender.
If the phone was activated and used in a location with no cameras and then deactivated right after, there would be no way to trace it or figure out who bought it.
The individual who acquired it need not be the person who used it either. There's a very active market in stolen phones, from walking off with one momentarily left alone by its owner through shoplifting the things. You can drive four tractor-trailers side by side through that assumption.
I once tried to teach my elderly mother how to secure her cellphone so it wouldn't be abused if lost or stolen. My whole family was horrified at the thought when they learned of it. Idiots.
All problems mentioned could be caused by some esoteric verdict in this case. It's not probable.
I'm coming to expect esoteric verdicts these days. All it takes is ignorance (lack of knowledge) of technical subjects; something that's rampant. Your average user just wants to get stuff done. S/He doesn't want to know how that works because that distracts them from their priorities. I can accept that, and support it. It makes those who aren't ignorant useful and valuable to those who are.
However, when those same ignorant users attempt to define how this stuff they don't understand gets done, that's when I say they're in over their heads and please do drown ASAP, or get out of the water.
Laws are intended to feed the criminal justice system.
*Our* intent for the criminal justice system is to deter, and force compensation for, bad (predatory) behavior.
*Governments* pervert that intent into feeding that system. There's money and power to be gained from it which is all governments ever need and want. This is why governments must be closely monitored and constrained from running wildly out of control, because left alone, they will. It's a fact of reality.
Fire can be a very good thing for (eg.) converting raw material into edible food or keeping you warm, but it can also burn down your house, city, forests, ... Governments are no different. We need to develop something like the fire department to keep our governments from burning out of our control. Revolutions can do that, but they're hardly an ideal solution to the problem.
... of course filing an obviously frivolous claim can result in bad things happening to the lawyer.
I'd hope that's true but I don't know that it is. I believe as long as they forewarn the client that to the best of their knowledge it would be unwinnable and the law's against them, the lawyer's got a pass. As long as the client's willing to foot the bill and the lawyer advises the client what the law says, they can foul up the courts and their victims all they want.