Good News: Obama Wants to Track Your Cell Phone

[busybody..]

Good News: Obama Wants to Track Your Cell Phone

Note to self: Say nothing bad about King Obama while chatting on the cell phone.


Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.


For years the left shrieked about supposed "warrentless wiretapping" of phone calls involving terror suspects. It will be curious to see the reaction of the Obamatons to this.

 

[koalabear]

I blame the Domestic Terrorists for not sticking to the land lines.

 

[Songcatcher]

I never had a cell phone, for ovbious reasones.

 

[busybody..]

I never had a cell phone, for ovbious reasones.

no one wanted to talk to you?

 

[Songcatcher]

no one wanted to talk to you?

I didn't like phones interupting my time. I didn't like phones zapping my brain with radiowaves. I didn't like the feds listening to my conversations.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Government may track cell phone, in real time, without search warrant, under Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), by analyzing information as to antennae being contacted by cell phones, so long as tracking does not involve cell phone being used in private place where visual surveillance would not be available.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

That seems reasonable to me. The 4th Amendment protects the right of the people to be "secure in THEIR persons, houses, papers and effects." The "papers and effects" of the phone companies that record the details of services provided to individual subscribers belongs to the phone companies, NOT the individual customers.

Who you talk to and for how long is NOT a privacy right granted by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. WHAT YOU SAY in that conversation, however, IS Constitutionally protected. It's no different than a personal letter. The contents of the letter are private. The name and location of the addressee is not. It's right there on the outside of the envelope for anyone to see.

The fact that Congress, through the ECPA and the FCC, restricts the sale and use of customer phone records with an eye toward individual privacy should not be confused with a non-existant Constitutional right.

Some laws extend rights that can be easily and legitimately withdrawn just by changing or repealing the law.

 

[busybody..]

Government may track cell phone, in real time, without search warrant, under Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), by analyzing information as to antennae being contacted by cell phones, so long as tracking does not involve cell phone being used in private place where visual surveillance would not be available.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

That seems reasonable to me. The 4th Amendment protects the right of the people to be "secure in THEIR persons, houses, papers and effects." The "papers and effects" of the phone companies that record the details of services provided to individual subscribers belongs to the phone companies, NOT the individual customers.

Who you talk to and for how long is NOT a privacy right granted by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. WHAT YOU SAY in that conversation, however, IS Constitutionally protected. It's no different than a personal letter. The contents of the letter are private. The name and location of the addressee is not. It's right there on the outside of the envelope for anyone to see.

The fact that Congress, through the ECPA and the FCC, restricts the sale and use of customer phone records with an eye toward individual privacy should not be confused with a non-existant Constitutional right.

Some laws extend rights that can be easily and legitimately withdrawn just by changing or repealing the law.

when did YOU become a MORON?

is THAT the purpose of the thread?

DUMMY!

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU

 

[Colonel Hogan]

when did YOU become a MORON?

is THAT the purpose of the thread?

DUMMY!

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU

Your threads have a purpose?

The law supports tracking cell phones, whether the President happens to be a wingnut or a dummycrap. Yeah? So? It's hardly an Obama "initiative."

You still want to catch terrorists, right?

You throw monkey shit your way, I'll throw it mine.

 

[busybody..]

when did YOU become a MORON?

is THAT the purpose of the thread?

DUMMY!

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU

Yes, they do have a point

and you missed it

BTW, I see you are trying HARD to ingratiate yourself to the LIB LIT crowd

Congrats you have made it

YES, YOU MISSED TEH POINT!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yes, they do have a point

and you missed it

BTW, I see you are trying HARD to ingratiate yourself to the LIB LIT crowd

Congrats you have made it

YES, YOU MISSED TEH POINT!

I got your silly point. Obama took what appears to you to be a "conservative" stance on an issue, and you want to rub the lefties noses in it. Fine. Enjoy.

But the distinction you apparently miss (and perhaps the libs did too) is that releasing customer phone records or "tracking" the location of a cellphone does not constitute wireless wiretapping. No one is actually listening to a conversation. No privacy has been invaded.

That is certainly a reasonable Constitutional interpretation and appears to be in line with the statutory provisions of the ECPA and FCC regulations. There is not much here worth making noise about.

But by all means go ahead if it makes you feel better.

 

[busybody..]

NO

YOU MISS THE POINT

Further, you are starting to annoy me (not that it shouldmatter to you, Im sure it doesnt)

You seem to have taken a decided turn to LOONVILLE

andyouarethisclosetoIGGY

(not that should matter one iota)

its shameful that a thoughtful person like you, should turn

 

[Colonel Hogan]

NO

YOU MISS THE POINT

Further, you are starting to annoy me (not that it shouldmatter to you, Im sure it doesnt)

You seem to have taken a decided turn to LOONVILLE

andyouarethisclosetoIGGY

(not that should matter one iota)

its shameful that a thoughtful person like you, should turn

Okay *sigh* I'll bite. Please tell me the point I missed. I really want to know.

Really.

 

[MzChrista]

Good News: Obama Wants to Track Your Cell Phone

Good cause I cant find mine half the time.

 

[busybody..]

Okay *sigh* I'll bite. Please tell me the point I missed. I really want to know.

Really.

You arent interested

You are more in need of acceptance

By the

LIB LOON LIT CROWD

You need to be part of THAT group for your satisfaction

Rather than being part of the RIGHT GROUP!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Why is the Colonel pretending that Obama thinks the Constitution means squat?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I suppose they have a right to track your car.

(After all, property tax is a permanent governmental lien, they "own" your car along with maybe the bank...)

I suppose they have a right to track you.

(After all, government is now your keeper...)

Maybe a chip or two...

 

[busybody..]

The Colonel is presenting a technical argument in a field of law the courts haven't spent a lot of time defining the limits of. Ruling comes down today I think.

that isnt the POINTof the thread

IS IT

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't know if they should have the right or not. I have OnStar in the Corvette so they know where I am at all times, they can even shut my engine down if they are told to, ostensibly to keep the car from being stolen. Of course I elected to have this installed in my car at purchase. I can turn it off as well. Generally I don't like the idea of being tracked by the government everywhere I go.

Get used to it. Big Brother has arrived with great fanfare and agnosticism...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What reaction?




The only thing they ever react to is Sarah Palin.

They won't go crazy until they think SHE's tracking their iPhones...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

As I see it, the question is, do American have a reasonable expectation of privacy while on their cell phones. Since they have the ability to turn off or on the GPS aspect of their phones I would say they do.

Do they?

 

[unregistered]