Slashdot Mirror
Text Messages in the Courts
KennyG944 noted a story running on CNN which talks about Text Messages being used in the Kobe Bryant trial. This raises a host of issues about the phone company keeping these messages around and expectations of privacy.
That is why I never used text messaging in the first place. THEY are watching us everywhere we go.
I think if you communicate over a network that is regulated by the company itself, as well as a federal orginization, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. (like now)
This is what I thought at first but then I RTFA and learned it is about being able to access the phone company's log of what you text message. I trust my privacy to no one and just assume that any thing I type is recorded and can be easily accessed. I find it best to whisper the important things directly in the persons ear.
"Don't ever say anything on e-mail or text messaging that you don't want to come back and bite you." Well Duh...
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
They proved their inability or lack of desire to cooperate when GRC.com was getting DDoS from that kid using an earthlink acct.
But it goes without saying that any public or private service you use (tech wise) is going to be logged and stored.
I really dont worry about it much... if I have to do some mission impossible stuff I certainly dont use my cellphone or my cable modem. Low tech is the way to go. Payphones and Juno (sorry Juno).
Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
So you think that if I FedEx a letter to someone I should expect FedEx to open it, photocopy it and store it in an archive somewhere? Or that if I make a phone call, I should expect that the telco tapes it and keeps the tape for an indefinite amount of time?
It's the same thing here really - SMSs are basically condensed phone messages, and it is definitely a reasonable expectation that your phone conversation is confidential between you and the other party, and that it stays that way.
There's a huge difference between storing who phoned who (or in the case of FedEx: "person Foo payed for a package to be sent to person Bar at YYYY-MM-DD") and actually storing the contents. In a reasonable privacy climate, phone companies should definitely be busted for this... but with Ashcroft et al. in charge, it is more likely that SMS retention becomes law rather than a punishable act.
Here in Norway the phone companies store all text messages and phone logs for 3 months. The most scary thing is that they also store your position, the police can ask for your (cellphones) movements 2 months ago and the phone companies will willingly deliver this information.
I have been dreaming about the phone that could run java or C code fast enough to do real time encryption using gpg or some other secure system. I want both audio and text messages encrypted. IM (=jabber, anyway) systems for computers can already use GPG, but I am having a hard time convincing people I know to use it. They simply don't see the point. Most of them don't even use GPG for mail even though there are plug-ins available for almost any mail browser (using GPG for IM is somewhat harder).
I'm not sure the majority of people would bother to invest in a phone that could do encryption if it cost slightly more.
This reminds me of another "hot" issue: The Everywhere Outdoors Video surveillance System. This is coming to your local neighborhood soon. When I debate with people about this issue most people just say "So What?" and "I don't really care, I've got nothing to hide". Personally I would prefer big brother not being able to read my mail, listen in on my calls and view my movements live on cameras at all times - even if I don't have anything to hide....
Back to the secure phone: I am convinced phones like this never will be sold. The authorities won't allow not being able to listen in. So this would would require a phone that could run c or java or other code fast (for games or something) enough so the GNU community could make a open source solution for encryption that would work even though the phone was not intended for making secure calls.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
> If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
You haven't been to the USA lately, have you?
So, we need phones with automatic end to end encryption. First text, then eventually voice. Of course it would be kind of expensive at first, and would only work between models of the same phone, but for security end to end is the only way to go.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't trust centralized electronic communications services. Period.
You're better off sending your personal communications via a $0.37 stamp in a tamper-evident envelope.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
- sending people who looked like they might drive while intoxicated to prison for years;
- castrating people who we arbitrarily decided might commit rapes at some point in the future;
- executing people who we felt might commit murder in the future?
Actually, that last one would probably be a real time saver, since the trial would be much shorter than it is now ("Who do you think?". "That guy over there". "What, the one with the squinty eyes?". "Yeah". "OK, he'll do")I realize you were trying to be funny, but apparently the phone companies ARE keeping track, as many have suspected anyway...
I wouldnt call that paranoia, id call it reality.. as now shown in a court of law..
Often paranoid's are correct, just a little extreme..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Something like this never has been a punishable act. Your comparison to FedEx is inane. The simple act of transmitting it means that multiple copies are generated all over the place. A better comparison would be calling somebody on the telephone and leaving a message for them when they are not home. You have no idea what happens to that sticky or who might happen to see it. Plus, the person who wrote the message down for you certainly is not obligated to destroy it or face criminal charges.
If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has been used by governments the world over to justify eroding privacy for the sake of security. Whether the Fourth Amendment says anything about the legality of requiring text communications to be recorded, the intent is that the government must have good reason to suspect the person being searched, and be reasonably sure of what they expect to find and where they expect to find it. Requiring monitoring of citizens "just in case" they commit a crime flies in the face of that ideal.
It is eventually deleted and I'm not going to send anything important over something like a text message.
This is where "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes in. If a reasonable user of such a system is unaware that the messages may be saved, his expectation of privacy may be higher than if he was aware. If his conversations are being recorded without his knowledge, he is less likely to be careful about what he says. What makes wiretaps different from this is that the conversations cannot be recorded without him being a suspect first, and, theoretically at least, law enforcement must show reasonable cause that he is a suspect before the conversations can be recorded. Allowing law enforcement to retrieve conversations that took place before he was a suspect also violates this ideal.
The main problem, as stated in the article, is that most people aren't aware their messages can be retrieved as much as four months after they were sent.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
These days, it is very odd that a company "forgets" to do something, especially if there is a cost involved (such as storage for billions of messages). Even if that cost is only a couple of hundred thousand a year, I find it hard to believe that someone didn't see that they could save some cash by getting rid of the text field after a few days.
Do you have any idea of the trouble it is to "cry rape" when it isn't? Do you know how victims are treated? Do you know how many rapes are not reported each year because women are afraid of being treated like they did something wrong?
Because that's bullshit. Honest to God rape versus date rape? Are you fucking kidding? Just because I go to dinner with a guy and make out on his couch afterwards doesn't mean I owe him a goddamn thing. Whether or not he paid for dinner.
It's not women who should be worried about being in bad situations, even though that is the reality. It's men who should be taught that they don't get to take whatever they want, and to respect a woman when she says no. That seems pretty simple to me.
On the Kobe note, do you honestly think he is going to get into serious trouble, even if it is proven that he did rape her? Mike Tyson went to jail for raping a woman and was applauded and welcomed back with open arms by many fans. Then he bit the ear of a man who intentionally walked into a boxing right to fight him and these same people went absolutely apeshit and called for him to be banned from boxing. What? The ear of a professional boxer is worth more than that which is most precious to a woman?
That's the message that is sent, though. Which is why athletes will continue to get away with this shit; they're treated like they're better than everyone else, even when they act just as awfully and cowardly as the next guy.
Do you know how many rapes are not reported each year because women are afraid of being treated like they did something wrong?
Exactly why well publicized cases of rape are important...the more legitimate rape cases the population hears about, the less likely women will be afraid to bring charges. Frankly, what's bullshit (as you so elequently put it) is that women are afraid at all, but I can't profess to know how the female psyche works.
It's men who should be taught that they don't get to take whatever they want, and to respect a woman when she says no.
Standard female response. This will happen as soon as women are taught that they don't get to use their gender or sexuality to get what THEY want, and when they learn some guys are assholes and just because you think they're hot/cool/wealthy/[insert superficial property here], you could still get into trouble around them.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, as a man I know that when I'm arguing with another, much larger/more agressive/less controlled man, there's an area I just do go. Is it right that I could get shot wearing a "I hate n***ers" sandwich board through downtown? No, but it could very well happen so I wouldn't do it. Common sense, really. Just like it's common sense to not be alone with a person who gets payed to work on their physique, building up endorphins and testosterone all day, and be physical and sometimes violent for their living. Cry me a river.
--trb
Could someone tell me what bearing this could possibly have on determining if Kobe is guilty?
If the messages contain something along the lines of "hey, I just got laid by Kobe, isn't that awesome?", then it would quickly dismantle the plaintiff's case. However, how can we be certain the messages have not been tampered with? If the messages indicate that the accusation is bullshit, then the plaintiff could simply say the messages were not her's. There could be no proof either way.
On the otherhand, if the messages express "hey, Kobe just raped me!", we still know nothing. If the victim is claiming she was raped now, how is a message at any point in time after the rape going to strengthen her case? The answer is, it does't. If I am lying at t[n+1], the same lie at t[n] does not make my statement true.
So what we ultimately have here is... nothing. You would think that a judge with a strong comprehension of logic would realize this and not even bother.
Join Tor today!
I'm claiming that when a woman comes over, both parties get drunk, they have sex and she doesn't remember it, it's not rape. Nor is it when two people have sex and the girl wants to hurt the guy for any miscellaneous reason afterwards. Both happened to buddies of mine in college.
Is it my fault for getting shot while driving through a bad neighborhood shouting slurs out the window? Probably not, but I'm certainly provoking the situation. Same with a girl dressing provocatively, getting drunk, flirting insatiably and going home with some guy. Neither is technically our fault, but I wouldnt' feel sorry for either of us...we were being stupid in a situation we KNEW was dangerous.
In an actual rape, it's the fault of whomever didn't have consent. However, proving consent (or lack thereof) is incredibly difficult with no eyewitnesses, and neither person involved can be considered credible. Men have to be careful to not get accused, but women have to be even more careful to not let themselves get into those situations...not because it would then be their fault, but because they may not be able to do anything to prevent it and they won't be able to prove it afterwards.
--trb
I don't mean to nitpick, or try to argue against your point, but I feel compelled to point out that men can be raped by both men and women. (see the second paragraph of the answer)
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey