Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds push for tracking cell phones
CNET News ^ | February 1, 2010 | Declan McCullagh

Posted on 02/11/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-92 last
To: Cheap_Hessian; All
You let me audit your long form birth certificate, and I'll let you audit my phone records, Kenyan.

Until then:

High Power Portable Jammer

Introducing the most sophisticated digital cell phone jammer of its class; a mobile device to help circumvent disturbances or noise from cellular phone calls - a high-power hand-held cell phone jammer with an internal, high-capacity battery, universally compatible with UMTS / 3G / CDMA / GSM / PCS networks.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

51 posted on 02/11/2010 10:01:37 AM PST by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

Right, since everyone has a cell phone they’ll just club people, take their cellphones and then pitch them. Great. And all the Lefty org’s that bashed W. over privacy concerns will A) Scream B) Engage in constructive challenging dialogue with O C) Sit Down and STFU.

No need to answer.


52 posted on 02/11/2010 10:05:25 AM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Bush couldn’t get away with this.


53 posted on 02/11/2010 10:11:52 AM PST by Dewey Revoltnow (Worst. Community. Organizer. Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
Right, since everyone has a cell phone they’ll just club people, take their cellphones and then pitch them. Great. And all the Lefty org’s that bashed W. over privacy concerns will A) Scream B) Engage in constructive challenging dialogue with O C) Sit Down and STFU.

Yep. Your common criminal on the street is much smarter than the criminals in the highest positions of government.
54 posted on 02/11/2010 10:15:04 AM PST by Dewey Revoltnow (Worst. Community. Organizer. Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian; Black Agnes; CodeToad

Old news.


55 posted on 02/11/2010 10:25:40 AM PST by Travis McGee (----www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I believe it was this decade.


56 posted on 02/11/2010 10:28:04 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Or the internet.


57 posted on 02/11/2010 10:29:03 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Feds push for tracking cell phones

How is that 'Hope and Change' working out for you?

Security Voices Against President Bush's Warrantless NSA Domestic Wiretap Program
58 posted on 02/11/2010 10:42:18 AM PST by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Those crazy Amish again.


59 posted on 02/11/2010 10:45:07 AM PST by wastedyears (The curtain has fallen, behold the messiah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
"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"

> Clearly the author thought that some invasions of privacy are unreasonable and some are reasonable.

I interpret the Warrants section to imply that even when a search is reasonable, a warrant is needed with specifics.

I suspect the courts interpret the Warrants section the opposite way: When a search is reasonable no warrant is necessary. And only when a search is unreasonable is a warrant necessary. But regardless of the interpretation, the crucial point is a definition of reasonable. If an male 6' 6' with dred locks and "black" features robs a bank it is not reasonable to put out an APB for a Black man. But it might be reasonable to put out an APB with the full description.

If a website is heavy with child porn, it might be reasoable to check out all visitors to that website. But it would not be reasonable to check all visitors to google or yahoo to find the child porn violator among that group that is overwhelmingly not into child porn.

Is there a way to define unreasonable that is not based on anecdotal examples?

60 posted on 02/11/2010 10:48:11 AM PST by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

“Reasonable” is whatever a judge wants it to be.


61 posted on 02/11/2010 10:51:35 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: j_guru
...they do not verify your ID.

Yet. But wait. A year ago in my state some nutball made a bomb that was remotely activated by one of those throwaway phones. Killed a bomb squad tech and maimed a city police chief.

From the remains they were able to identify the phone down to where and when it was bought, and identified a suspect by store security video from that time. But they'll say, you know, it's for the common good that folks (that's what corpse-man calls them) should have to show papers to make a phone call. Any phone call. Technology exists to do that right now and just wait, some "patriot act" 3 or 4 will have that.

Since 2000 the federal government has hooked into almost all of the communications infrastructure in this country and much of the world. The telcos (most of them) gleefully hand over any records and information they want, in order to stay in business. Only one (QWest) in the US offered any resistance and I believe those days are done.

62 posted on 02/11/2010 10:57:32 AM PST by Clinging Bitterly (We need to limit political office holders to two terms. One in office, and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

And yet you would be committing a crime if you modified a regular GSM phone to listen to someone else’s phone conversation, because they have an expectation of privacy.


63 posted on 02/11/2010 10:59:10 AM PST by Skenderbej (No muhammadan practices his religion peacefully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

It would be a waste of resource. All you would get were conversations ordering lobster and planning Latino night at the White House.


64 posted on 02/11/2010 11:00:01 AM PST by Skenderbej (No muhammadan practices his religion peacefully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

I like yer thinking :>>


65 posted on 02/11/2010 11:06:01 AM PST by swarthyguy (My toast when imbibing: "Beer hu Akbar" - Riposte - "Inshallah")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
And you have just put your finger on why I get so irritated on threads like these. A lawyer who golfs with a politician (aka a ‘judge’) makes some dumb$$ ruling, which then becomes ‘precedent’, which then must be upheld because of the concept of ‘stare decisis’. So the Feds and police go forth with the dumba$$ ruling in hand and We the People get trampled. The Constitution gets shredded.

And now we get to where we are now. Warrantless tracing and eavesdropping is considered acceptable because of ‘practical’ law enforcement purposes. Incrementalism does indeed work.

66 posted on 02/11/2010 11:07:06 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

You are so right!


67 posted on 02/11/2010 11:10:08 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Or your snail-mail....


68 posted on 02/11/2010 11:28:04 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.

Heh heh, you know there are a LOT of special ops guys over 35 who would take offense at that. :)

69 posted on 02/11/2010 11:29:25 AM PST by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: j_guru
Note to bank robbers: use pay as you go. lol

LOL yeah I was just about to say! 20 successful bank robberies and they're too dumb to know they shouldn't use phones with traceable info!

70 posted on 02/11/2010 11:31:37 AM PST by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

The whole concept of “stare decisis” (stand on decided cases) assumes that the constitution will never be shredded, which of course *is* being shredded right before our very eyes. A more obvious attack on our sovereignty as well as privacy has never existed in the history of our country.

I almost want to move to Canada (their privacy laws are a bit stronger than ours).


71 posted on 02/11/2010 11:43:36 AM PST by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer9
Internal Report Finds Flagrant National Security Letter Abuse By FBI
72 posted on 02/11/2010 12:16:23 PM PST by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

thanks bamahead


73 posted on 02/11/2010 12:55:28 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer9

They probably don’t realize they are narcissists. Most don’t.


74 posted on 02/11/2010 1:17:28 PM PST by CholeraJoe (Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MrB

LOL!!


75 posted on 02/11/2010 2:12:15 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINO's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Skenderbej

No doubt ;-)


76 posted on 02/11/2010 2:15:50 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINO's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Lots of people around here will say “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” Surely, they trust the good graces and intentions of Obama, Rahm, Clinton, Holder and the like much more than I do.


77 posted on 02/11/2010 2:26:07 PM PST by MichiganConservative (I wouldn't hate the government if it didn't exist. (Evil + Stupid) === Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
So...when do we start tearing these assholes from limb to limb? When do we say enough is enough?

What straw will it be? Or do we continue to just stand by and do nothing about it?

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TRAITORS! IT'S WAY PAST TIME!

78 posted on 02/11/2010 5:28:18 PM PST by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
The Constitution is clear : get a warrant. The Fourth Amendment doesn't have an asterisks after it.

However, I'm wondering where the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd has disappeared to. They were well represented in preceding years
79 posted on 02/11/2010 5:33:52 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carolinacrazy

here is the more interesting thing.
Most drug dealers use pre-paid cell phones because they know that police can track them with their cells. Get warrants for their calls etc.

So the vast majority do use pre-paid where no name is required. Terrorists do the same thing.


80 posted on 02/11/2010 8:23:57 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

That they think you have no expectation to privacy or that you should act as if you don’t?

because i see the two as different things.


81 posted on 02/11/2010 8:25:40 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
"More undeniable proof that Orwell wasn't a novelist, he was an oracle who wrote in novel format!"

Great graphic and commentary.

82 posted on 02/11/2010 8:41:54 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Clinging Bitterly

But what you are describing is not about safety but is about security. Security is about after the fact...id the perps. Safety is about defense in the now.

Safety is important. security less so


83 posted on 02/11/2010 8:47:28 PM PST by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

real simple, remove the battery until you are going to make a call.

Anyone calling you can just leave a voice mail!


84 posted on 02/11/2010 8:54:53 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

What’s really nuts, is people here, and on DU change their definition of when the government has “gone to far” based on who is in office. Very shortsighted... Very very dangerous. Very stupid. But people over here talked about Bush as if he was a god. At DU they talk about the Obmessiah the same way. The sheeple love the golden calf.


85 posted on 02/11/2010 10:25:08 PM PST by DariusBane (Even the Rocks shall cry out "Hobamma to the Highest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
Exactly.

And as I said they caught the guy who made the bombs with the throwaway phones even without him giving ID. And presumably a smart guy - built one easily found fake bomb and hid a similar real one a little better at the place next door to where he called in the threat. Wanted to kill people and accomplished that by instilling complacency in the pros with the fake bomb. The second bomb (the real one), the veteran bomb squad tech just picked it up and carried it in to an occupied building to get out of the rain. The perp, from a vantage point, just called the rigged phone and kaboom.

Now, among the baddest of the bad we have bin Laden. Everybody knows and knew who he is (was?) and his whole life story, and I dare say knowing all that did nothing to stop him.

86 posted on 02/12/2010 12:02:37 AM PST by Clinging Bitterly (We need to limit political office holders to two terms. One in office, and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

I got a question for everyone out there....notice the police has moved slowly from the six shooter neighborhood cop to this military tactical equipment flash bang wearing storm trooper ? I get the role of law enforcement even though I believe man in general can not be given power to wield, but the force they can apply is very, very, disconcerting.


87 posted on 02/12/2010 12:16:57 AM PST by TheRevolution1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American

I don’t hear the ACLU screaming the way they did under Pres Bush’s Patriot Act.

Only foreigners and terrorists and people who use the PUBLIC library deserve privacy protection.


88 posted on 02/12/2010 8:06:10 AM PST by dervish (I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Munz
Interesting question. I am not quite sure how to approach it.

Today we have people putting everything about themselves out there in public forums. Obviously, they have no expectation of privacy, or seemingly any desire for it. Such is their choice. But that doesn't give the police or the Feds the right to trace or tap at will.

The line of thinking the .gov is pursuing could be used by hackers to get free of charges. ‘Hey, you have no expectation of privacy when using electronic mediums, so I can hack all I please!’. Slippery slope and all that.

But the US Constitution's Bill of Rights was never meant to be an enumeration of rights like it is now being treated as.

89 posted on 02/12/2010 8:30:07 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

I agree with what you say. But as slippery slopes go, the more we look back to the constitution the more people like Clinton try to change it by it’s own words.

being a living document as they say, they think times have changed so much with technology and all that there is a right to change it.
While people like us think there is a duty to preserve it.

Maybe I am just thinking out loud, but I just wish we could go back to some simpler times in many respects.

Is there an expectation to privacy. Certainly, but only in so far as what you do in the privacy of your own home. The very minute that you allow what you do to leave your domicile, being a smart person, you should expect that it will no longer be private.

Also the moment that you or your actions interact with any other person you might as well figure the rest of the world can and may know about it.

Is this right? No, I wish it were more secure, But it is what I live by.


90 posted on 02/12/2010 12:53:24 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

they CAN be used when part of a totality of evidence.

they just busted a shooter on the U of M(MN) campus here this week using this method.


91 posted on 02/12/2010 1:17:51 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

My point was that cell phone evidence cannot be used to establish an alibi since while the cell phone may have hit a certain tower at a certain time, that doesn’t establish who was carrying the phone.

For example, a murder was committed at 10pm. At 10:20pm, the suspect’s cell phone hits a tower signal 55 miles away and an hour later hits one 100 miles away along the same interstate. The suspect’s attorney argues that his client was miles away from the crime by virtue of his cell phone being logged miles away. In the case I vaguely recall, the judge ruled that evidence inadmissible because a confederate could have been carrying the phone.


92 posted on 02/12/2010 1:43:52 PM PST by CholeraJoe (Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-92 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson