Obama Admin wants to know where you are

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.

Reading comprehension-that's 'Tracking', not 'listening'...but, you might be a soothsayer, wouldn't your family be proud of you?
 
mikemark8 said:
Reading comprehension-that's 'Tracking', not 'listening'...but, you might be a soothsayer, wouldn't your family be proud of you?
Click to expand...

So...only "listening" can be considered a violation of the 4th amendment?

What about what Bush did under the Patriot Act which involved data-mining of phone records and has never been shown to involved warrantlessly listening in on phone conversations that normally would require a warrant under the 4th amendment?

Was Bush violating the 4th amendment in your view?
 
shagdrum said:
So...only "listening" can be considered a violation of the 4th amendment?

What about what Bush did under the Patriot Act which involved data-mining of phone records and has never been shown to involved warrantlessly listening in on phone conversations that normally would require a warrant under the 4th amendment?

Was Bush violating the 4th amendment in your view?
Click to expand...

Wrong is wrong, period-the 4th 'guarantees' protection from illegal search and seizure. If the government is allowed unfettered access to records that can track virtually anyone for any reason, it is just a matter of time before other more troubling precedents could be established.

A federal employee has a personal problem with you? He could easily, in theory, track your movements. Or maybe, a local cop. On the other hand, why is it that if you lose your phone, the cell phone provider pretty much tell's you 'you are out of luck'? (Credit to the second comment below link).

Was the Bush Administration wrong under the Patriot Act? Since it was ostensibly to thwart terrorism and related activities, I believe the wavier was narrowly warranted as it targeted individuals who had established probable cause for tracking. That does not, IMO justify a blanket pass to what effectively could be ANY law enforcement agency tracking any citizen for real or imagined reason-WITHOUT A WARRANT.

I am all for the government having the tools necessary to protect the common good, but think that if they are given a blanket exemption with regards to basic freedoms, our freedoms will fall like dominoes, especially in this historic partisan era.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decl...n-the-fbi-secretly-track-your-cell-phone.aspx
 
mikemark8 said:
Wrong is wrong, period-the 4th 'guarantees' protection from illegal search and seizure. If the government is allowed unfettered access to records that can track virtually anyone for any reason, it is just a matter of time before other more troubling precedents could be established.

A federal employee has a personal problem with you? He could easily, in theory, track your movements. Or maybe, a local cop. On the other hand, why is it that if you lose your phone, the cell phone provider pretty much tell's you 'you are out of luck'? (Credit to the second comment below link).

Was the Bush Administration wrong under the Patriot Act? Since it was ostensibly to thwart terrorism and related activities, I believe the wavier was narrowly warranted as it targeted individuals who had established probable cause for tracking. That does not, IMO justify a blanket pass to what effectively could be ANY law enforcement agency tracking any citizen for real or imagined reason-WITHOUT A WARRANT.

I am all for the government having the tools necessary to protect the common good, but think that if they are given a blanket exemption with regards to basic freedoms, our freedoms will fall like dominoes, especially in this historic partisan era.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decl...n-the-fbi-secretly-track-your-cell-phone.aspx
Click to expand...

So, Bush was justified but Obama is not?
 
I wrote:

Was the Bush Administration wrong under the Patriot Act? Since it was ostensibly to thwart terrorism and related activities, I believe the wavier was narrowly warranted as it targeted individuals who had established probable cause for tracking. (i.e. known terrorists) added
That does not, IMO justify a blanket pass to what effectively could be ANY law enforcement agency tracking any citizen for real or imagined reason-WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Did what Bush did violate the Forth amendment? I think that the Administrations' argument, the necessity to be able to respond to perceived national security threats in a rapid time frame, narrowly justified their actions. I also admit that a violation is a violation. This appearance before the Third Circuit shows that this Administration wants carte blanche, sidestepping any restrictions whatsoever. There are some restrictions that have become commonplace in the post 9/11 world-photographing bridges, or power plants come to mind. Those probably infringe on constitutional rights as well, but that should not be cause for the government to throw out ALL rights.
I am more concerned with the slippery-slope aspect.
 
I don't remember the Bush administration arguing that the 4th amendment didn't protect cell phone conversations., or that the expectation of privacy was different on the cell phone compared to a land line.

Are you talking about the changes made to wire tap warrants that were designed to address the challenge of disposable cell phones? Where LEO previously had to file warrants on individual phone numbers and not just on the individual?
 
Call me paranoid, the stuff Bush did doesn't bother me as much (but it did bother me) as this-if the Obama Adminsitration has their way, they will know where you are or have been so long as you have your cell phone with you. Big Brother, monitoring your whereabouts at all times?
Remote activation of your cell phones' video capabilities to make sure you aren’t doing something you shouldn’t be doing? I do wish I were kidding with that last one, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that is possible. I remotely make 'fixes' and corrections on my mother-in-laws' computer (she's 100's of miles away) routinely, if the government is allowed to do this can that be far behind, applicable to your cell phone? The Obama administration says you cannot have a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy with regards to your cellphone. Sounds like a door opening that should have been sealed shut by the 4th amendment, IMO.
 
Since you guys are on the topic of rights...read this

http://www.kuda1610.com/?p=5387

I'm willing to bet you will be INFURIATED when you read it. Made me sick at how quickly our rights are being stripped from us. It's only a matter of time unless the world starts opening its eyes.
 
Have you guys seen the new OnStar commercial where the car is stolen and the cop calls it in, and OnStar shuts the car down? Yikes. I predicted this years ago. So, imagine you're a right wing Constitutionalist on Janet Napolitano's watch list, and you drive a GM...
 
mikemark8 said:
may be a borderline nutjob, though-not the kind of behavior that is welcome or goes unnoticed (indoor firing range in the ATTIC?) in suburbia, and add to that a 'pissed off' wife?

YouTube- Wife Calls Cops On Man Preparing For Martial Law In Massachusetts
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Puts a different light on it all together. The story I posted made him seem more innocent, but the video didn't bode so well for him. The only thing that strikes me as wrong is this guy shooting the gun in his house, in a residential neighborhood. He can have all the guns and stuff he wants, but the indoor range thing is nuts!
 
at least have the sense to put the shooting range in the basement...with sound proofing:D -oh, and be careful with the wife if you're going to get all subversive and such, if she isn't on you side there is such a thing as 'need to know'. He'll negotiate with the authorities, get a suspended sentence and surrender all his weapons...get a divorce, live on the street...
 
mikemark8 said:
at least have the sense to put the shooting range in the basement...with sound proofing:D -oh, and be careful with the wife if you're going to get all subversive and such, if she isn't on you side there is such a thing as 'need to know'. He'll negotiate with the authorities, get a suspended sentence and surrender all his weapons...get a divorce, live on the street...
Click to expand...

HAHA! Good points :D
 
Calabrio said:
So he was basically arrested for the indoor firing range?
Click to expand...

I was confused till I saw the vid. What I'm getting out of it was along with gun ownership rights comes the need for sanity. When you purchase a gun (at least in Florida) they make you sign something saying that you are mentally fit to own a gun.

What I'm getting out of the story is because he started to become radical in his thoughts, along with comments about wanting to shoot black people, along with having an indoor firing range were the main components of the seizure. The fact he had flashbangs and such I don't think helped his case much either (i'm not sure if they are legal or not).

The amount of ammo or guns should have no bearing on the case, and if it does civil rights lawyers I'm hoping will be all over this. You don't see them barging into millionaires houses that like to collect guns + of course he'll have lots of ammo for them, why they capitalized on that piece of info is beyond me.
 
ripped camel said:
I was confused till I saw the vid. What I'm getting out of it was along with gun ownership rights comes the need for sanity. When you purchase a gun (at least in Florida) they make you sign something saying that you are mentally fit to own a gun.

What I'm getting out of the story is because he started to become radical in his thoughts, along with comments about wanting to shoot black people, along with having an indoor firing range were the main components of the seizure. The fact he had flashbangs and such I don't think helped his case much either (i'm not sure if they are legal or not).
Click to expand...
Be careful when you start pronouncing people 'insane.' Neither you nor I are qualified to make that judgment, especially from news stories. Remember, David Koresh was pronounced a child molester, despite the lack of any evidence demonstrating that. It turned out that was a rumor started by the ATF to distract from their total bungling of a tax collecting operation.

The amount of ammo or guns should have no bearing on the case, and if it does civil rights lawyers I'm hoping will be all over this. You don't see them barging into millionaires houses that like to collect guns + of course he'll have lots of ammo for them, why they capitalized on that piece of info is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. Pro athletes go through that all the time.
 
fossten said:
Be careful when you start pronouncing people 'insane.' Neither you nor I are qualified to make that judgment, especially from news stories. Remember, David Koresh was pronounced a child molester, despite the lack of any evidence demonstrating that. It turned out that was a rumor started by the ATF to distract from their total bungling of a tax collecting operation.

Yes you do. Pro athletes go through that all the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he's insane, I'm saying people need to say they are sane in order to get guns. I'm saying that they used his comments to his wife as ammunition (no pun intended) to question his sanity, along with having an indoor firing range in his 3rd floor in a suburban area. The heresy of what he said to his wife is of no interest to me, but the firing range is pretty bad. Had he used the basement like was mentioned earlier in this thread I feel his sanity at that point shouldn't be questioned.
 
He's right- in Florida, even if you are "sane", the state will flag people if they have any reason to suspect that they may act irrationally. For example, if they've recently experienced a life threatening illness, you can be flagged by the Dept of Ag and they'll delay you're purchase of a legal firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 132 (members: 0, guests: 132)
Back
Top