Feds push for tracking cell phones

CNET News ^ | February 1, 2010 | Declan McCullagh

[parthian shot]

You said it stephenjohnbanker!! Let’s not only audit Zippy’s phone, but let’s ask Congress and the Supremes to lead by example. It’s time that they were subject to their own laws first, and not above any laws!!!!

[OldDeckHand]

"The defense attempted to use the cell phone’s whereabouts to show the defendant had left the city before the time of the murder and it was not allowed."

That's interesting. I would like to look around for it. Do you have an idea about a time-frame for the case? Was it recent - within this decade, or something from the '90s.

[OldDeckHand]

Oops, that should have read...

"...effectively waiving any expectation of privacy they might have enjoyed."

[anonsquared]

Obama should have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” when it comes to his birth certificate, school records, etc, since he does claim to be eligible for the highest office in the land.

[a fool in paradise]

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey.

They had to look at everyone's phone records to connect those dots. It's a world of difference to listening in on someone stateside in an international call with a member of Al Qaeda.

The press had journalists who WERE communicating directly with AQ. This is the reason for the big stink. Has to be. Time Magazine was one such publication with these contacts.

[a fool in paradise]

As Rush pointed out, you can’t take the battery out of an iphone.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Feds push for tracking cell phones"

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

[Tublecane]

“As Rush pointed out, you can’t take the battery out of an iphone.”

Then criminals won’t use i-phones.

[Mad Dawgg]

'Big Brother wants to watch the "serfs" even more than it does now.'

EGGSactly Batman!

('cept the proper term is "proles"...)

[varyouga]

Or just take the battery out.

An almost unknown fact- some phones will still ping the last SIM code for hours after the battery and SIM is gone. Impossible to tell exactly which ones without dissecting them or scanning for a ping.

It's "for the children", of course.

[The Comedian]

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.

[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.

No need to answer.

[Dewey Revoltnow]

Bush couldn’t get away with this.

[Dewey Revoltnow]

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.

[Travis McGee]

Old news.

[CholeraJoe]

I believe it was this decade.

[ilovesarah2012]

Or the internet.

[Cheerio]

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

[wastedyears]

Those crazy Amish again.

[spintreebob]

"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?