Cell phone users: No Reasonable expectation of Privacy

[Wapiti]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Big brother is watching you and it's ok. No worries, it's for the best. It's not the Patriot Act because the Patriot Act is just wrong, it's better.

Do you care?

[themuzicman]

Yes. And this was my primary concern when we passed the Patriot Act. Proponents said that GW wouldn't use the patriot act improperly (something that may or may not be true), but my concern was setting this kind of precedent for a government whose motive were not as pure as the present one allegedly was.

And here it is.

[Cooper]

The article is a nice spin.....

[Shauru]

This doesn't surprise or upset me all that much. I knew about this a while ago. As well as having spoken with a guy who works as the boss of people whose job is to comb through texts and pictures.

He says it's scary to think about, but they don't just have your location. They have EVERYTHING you've done with that phone.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That blog you posted has no reasonable expectation of being reasonable :)
[Unobjective liberal praising Obama....(not) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)]


On the one hand; if it's being used to capture criminals (like it has been effectively used ,prompting this discussion).... then I have no issue with it. If some Gov't honk wants to fap while I talk dirty to a gf... that's ok by me lol.

On the other... it lends itself to the POTENTIAL for misuse and the subversion of the private citizen. Anyone familiar with COINTELPRO (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) can rightfully say that the Government should not be trusted.

All in all---- it's oversight. I mean... they already have the right to read your email, and all your land-line phone traffic has been monitored for a few years now (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

It's for your own good don't you know?

-------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the technology is there anyway. They can monitor you all they want, and you don't have to know about it. If it's a serious concern, you can switch to an anonymous pre-paid cell.

The only question then is; will evidence gathered from this surveillance serve as evidence in a court of law.
I think it should.
---------------------------------------------------------
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Nightsun]

By the way, what kind of illegal stuff you do that you worry so much about privacy?

[Wapiti]

Oh, I should only worry if I'm doing something illegal? Very good argument. By all means, please track my every move and conversation, I have nothing to hide.

Maybe there is not anything illegal I'm trying to hide but rather Intellectual Property I am trying to keep secret.

That blog you posted has no reasonable expectation of being reasonable
[Unobjective liberal praising Obama....(not)]
Well, I didn't actually read the entire article, just used it for reference. Grabbed one of the first I saw from a google search. Maybe next time I'll read....

[Locke03]

Worrying, but not at all surprising. Echelon, Carnivore, ADVISE... Various government agencies and programs have been sucking up, processing, and cataloging pretty much every form of electronic communication one can imagine, both domestic and foreign, for decades now. Innocent until proven guilty? Right to privacy? Protection from unlawful search and seizure? They sound nice, but at best are true at only a local level.

[nacht]

Looks like standard legal language that is used to make arguments that justify this sort of thing. The "no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term, and about the only thing they could say if they believe that the practice they are using is in keeping with the constitution's prohibitions.

If there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy then it is unconstitutional to do it without a warrant, and any evidence they have collected through such means will need to be thrown out. Along with any evidence that they gained through having seen that evidence (fruit from a poisoned tree). See also, Florida v. Riley (1989).

Now, I have not looked at the case in any great detail and am certainly not claiming that they are right to say it, but what else is your department going to say when challenged on this sort of thing? "I'm sorry, let's throw out years of casework?"

[kepstein8888]

Wait a sec...A right wing web site is complaining that Obama wants to listen in on our phone calls. Isn't that a good thing from their point of view?...Or is it only a good thing when Republican presidents do it?

[ATCGs]

I haven't treated cell-phone communication as private, ever. Have you?

If i need to send a bank acct number to someone, i send one half by email, the other by text. Or one half by voice, the other by email... etc.

In addition to nacht's point that it is a legal issue, cell phones are in no way private, regardless of if the government is tracking them or not - the companies can, which means it isn't impossible for other people to do it (technically difficult, and of remains-to-be-seen legality, but possible).

[INTJRyan]

Regular analog phone conversations have not had a reasonable expectation of privacy for a long time. Not sure why cell phones would be any different.

[Grimstad]

I think not having my calls listened to, recorded is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being able to trace it's location? Meh. Look at how many phones have GPS capability. Someone / something some where is tracking your location for your convenience.

[plotthickens]

Pst. Cars have GPS as well. And your most phones communicate with towers unless you take the battery out.

THIS is why i'm sooooo careful about having stuff online and having a cell phone. I've had glimpses of those profiles, and the data amassed is frickin' staggering.

[SShack]

Regular analog phone conversations have not had a reasonable expectation of privacy for a long time. Not sure why cell phones would be any different.

I attended a lunch speech by Judge Alex Kozinski (Woooo! Name dropping!) back around Bush's second term where he focused on the expectation of privacy and the degradation thereof and warnings about its future.

He presented an interesting concept -- he, and he suggested other judges as well, determine whether or not there's a reasonable expectation of privacy based on a person's behavior. Do they act like what they're doing is private? People have an expectation of privacy for whatever they do in their homes usually, hence doors, et cetera.

But, he pointed out, when more and more people start having loud cell phone conversations in public, and these judges living their lives notice this just like we do, they start to question whether or not people actually are treating cell phone conversations with the expectation of privacy. And if people continue to behave in that fashion, a judge may well determine that no, people don't actually have an expectation of privacy on their cell phones. He predicted that cell phone conversations could lose their protections.

[Krazy P]

This is another good reason not to use cell phones. Makes my decision seem all the more enlightened!

[reb]

has anyone seen the 'onstar' commercial, where the cops are chasing some car thief. they are 'on the phone' with onstar, and onstar cuts the power to the stolen car?

think about the ramifications of that...and then read Pandemonium's 'filtering the internet' thread and watch bloomberg with the 'volker rule' replay of congressional hearings.

[plotthickens]

has anyone seen the 'onstar' commercial, where the cops are chasing some car thief. they are 'on the phone' with onstar, and onstar cuts the power to the stolen car?

think about the ramifications of that...and then read Pandemonium's 'filtering the internet' thread and watch bloomberg with the 'volker rule' replay of congressional hearings.

's not just power they can cut. The dashboard harness is integrated with the GPS-enabled wireless device. If a modern car has computerized dashboard-to-engine controls, then everything that comes from the cab into the motor through that harness -- steering, speed, gear (not radio or AC/vent/heater, etc) -- can be remote controlled. I'm surprised it's not controlled more often, though if more people knew that they could be puppeted I think there would be a lot less of these modern cars sold. And that is why the cars we buy are only pre-1980's.

Okay, that and I like to work on 'em. Except gapping points on 6-cyl fords (ARG).

[INTJRyan]

I attended a lunch speech by Judge Alex Kozinski (Woooo! Name dropping!) back around Bush's second term where he focused on the expectation of privacy and the degradation thereof and warnings about its future.

He presented an interesting concept -- he, and he suggested other judges as well, determine whether or not there's a reasonable expectation of privacy based on a person's behavior. Do they act like what they're doing is private? People have an expectation of privacy for whatever they do in their homes usually, hence doors, et cetera.

But, he pointed out, when more and more people start having loud cell phone conversations in public, and these judges living their lives notice this just like we do, they start to question whether or not people actually are treating cell phone conversations with the expectation of privacy. And if people continue to behave in that fashion, a judge may well determine that no, people don't actually have an expectation of privacy on their cell phones. He predicted that cell phone conversations could lose their protections.

Interesting. My recollection was that old school telephone conversations were never private because you actually had to dial into an operator who put your call through to the correct circuit. In other words, even if standing in a sealed phone booth, it was common knowledge that a third party person was, or at least could be, on the other line. Hence no expectation of privacy.

[Mader]

Cell phone conversations have never been private. Heck, I once lived in an old house with old knob and tube wiring in which I added stereo speakers, and I picked up cell phone calls from all over the neighborhood. The same can happen on a home phone that is cordless, altho, your home phone is considered private, even if it is cordless. Doesn't mean the neighbors can't listen in, tho.

I understand the concerns about the Patriot Act. But, we had 3000 people killed one day, more were killed than at Pearl Harbor. During war, the government has always stepped on normal freedoms in order to protect the people. History books, anyone. I agree that the Patriot Act can be used improperly, but I like to be able to walk down the street without bombs going off, I like to go to the ballgame without planes crashing into the stadium. Yeah, sounds extreme, but then someone already plowed into a skyscraper, so, not so extreme anymore. I want the government to catch the bad guys, I want the government to keep my children safe, so, during this time of war, I will let them slide on the Patriot Act.

[nacht]

I understand the concerns about the Patriot Act. But, we had 3000 people killed one day, more were killed than at Pearl Harbor.


...and this is relevant how? I can throw out a lot of statistics to try and put things in context:

- 2,949 US dead (Saipan)
- 4,373 US military dead (Iraq war as of Jan 17)
- 6,821 US dead (Iwo Jima)
- 18,573 US dead (homicide, 2006)
- ~19k US dead (Battle of the Bulge)
- 42,636 US dead (number of people killed in car accidents in 2005)
- 56,326 US dead (Influenza and Pneumonia in 2006)
- 72,449 US dead (Diabetes in 2006)
- 631,636 US dead (Heart disease, 2006)
- 1.9 million US dead (est deaths if there were a flu pandemic with the same mortality and infection characteristics of the 1918 flu pandemic)

I don't see calls to limit the speed limit to 30 mph on freeways, to increase the monitoring systems inside of the cars to ensure people do not violate the speed limits, and only limited calls to regulate portion size and salt content. I don't see the money that is currently being poured into the military being redirected to police departments, or medical research.

Instead I see it being directed toward the--largely ineffective--reduction of liberties that wouldn't have even prevented 9/11. If we are going to spend our liberties, could we at least spend them on something worthwhile?


During war, the government has always stepped on normal freedoms in order to protect the people. History books, anyone.


To quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:


We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.


This is not news. In Ex parte Milligan (1866) ruled that when there was a functioning government with civilian courts, then habeas corpus couldn't be arbitrarily suspended and military courts couldn't try civilians even during times of war. In Ex parte Merryman (1861) it was decided that a military officer has no right to detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war.

Further, this is not a formally Declared War. There is nothing that vaguely resembles a "declared war on terror" going around, there isn't even a declared war on Afghanistan.

Thus, it takes significantly more than handwaving about "war" to justify the removal of liberties, at least constitutionally. There is a legitimate question about whether there is an "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy." I am curious about how the SCOTUS will rule in this one if given the chance.


I agree that the Patriot Act can be used improperly, but I like to be able to walk down the street without bombs going off, I like to go to the ballgame without planes crashing into the stadium.


Nice little appeal to fear here, but not grounded in reason. There is nothing stopping this from happening now.


I want the government to catch the bad guys, I want the government to keep my children safe, so, during this time of war, I will let them slide on the Patriot Act.

Just one question then: What are the criteria for the war being over?

[Cistercian]

Cell phone conversations have never been private. Heck, I once lived in an old house with old knob and tube wiring in which I added stereo speakers, and I picked up cell phone calls from all over the neighborhood. The same can happen on a home phone that is cordless, altho, your home phone is considered private, even if it is cordless. Doesn't mean the neighbors can't listen in, tho.

I understand the concerns about the Patriot Act. But, we had 3000 people killed one day, more were killed than at Pearl Harbor. During war, the government has always stepped on normal freedoms in order to protect the people. History books, anyone. I agree that the Patriot Act can be used improperly, but I like to be able to walk down the street without bombs going off, I like to go to the ballgame without planes crashing into the stadium. Yeah, sounds extreme, but then someone already plowed into a skyscraper, so, not so extreme anymore. I want the government to catch the bad guys, I want the government to keep my children safe, so, during this time of war, I will let them slide on the Patriot Act.

As an American I want to walk down the street and not worry about the Gestapo.
The patriot act was the work of scum.Look at it this way: which is worse, buildings hit by planes or cities by thermonuclear weapons.I grew up during the cold war.Random explosions are hardly worth mentioning compared to every urban center in the US reaching 10 million degrees.Only the worst kind of dolt would believe the fear mongering today.
There is no privacy now.
And it sucks.

[Cooper]

Anyone can go to Radio Shack or Walmart, buy a Police scanner and a frequencey book, and listen to all kinds of "private" conversations. Just tune in to "Cell Phone Trunks"....

[thod]

I understand the concerns about the Patriot Act. But, we had 3000 people killed one day, more were killed than at Pearl Harbor. During war, the government has always stepped on normal freedoms in order to protect the people. History books, anyone. I agree that the Patriot Act can be used improperly, but I like to be able to walk down the street without bombs going off, I like to go to the ballgame without planes crashing into the stadium. Yeah, sounds extreme, but then someone already plowed into a skyscraper, so, not so extreme anymore. I want the government to catch the bad guys, I want the government to keep my children safe, so, during this time of war, I will let them slide on the Patriot Act.

Those who renounce war shall be enslaved by those who do not. You see, if you are unwilling to fight me, I can impose any conditions I wish upon you. What's more, I know I will not have to fight you because you will always back down to protect yourself. You become a nasty cringing feral creature, willing to go to any extreme and suffer any indignity to preserve that which you value. There is nothing of nobility in you, you are ruled by your fears. What you must learn is courage. Now courage can be learned but it is something that the current school and work system is designed to suppress.

Our forefathers were willing to go to war to protect their liberties. For them those liberties meant more than life. Such ideas are not changed by improved technology. They had the courage that you lack. An obvious difference is that they would have seen many of their peers die prior to adulthood. This would have taught them that life is temporary, you cannot keep it, you cannot win. Such is not a davalueing of life, it is the reality. Once you realise this, you can conquer your fear of death and the conquest of fear is courage. Freed from the bonds of fear you are able to do what is right because what matters is not how long you shall live, but how you shall live.

These men, these terrorists, that you fear, are men of courage. They are willing to make the sacrifice for what they believe and that is why you fear them. You cannot control them by your threats, you must put your own safety on the line to beat them. Yet you cannot see that they are not the ones oppressing you. It is the men in the white house that do that. It is they that give you orders, it is they that tap your phones, it is they that threaten you if you do not comply. You lack the courage to stand up to them.

I have no fear of terrorists. I have never met one or met anyone that has. The threat of a bomb death is less than being struck by lightening. Cannot you not see that your fears are being manipulated? Will you give up everything you value for just the tiniest bit of safety? If so then you are no man and deserve to be dominated. There is much truth in the old Ben Franklin quote "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"