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.
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.
> 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!
Well, yes, duh. But note the other part of Kagan's statement:
"I think in these days of corporate fraud and in these days of terrorism we're seeing more and more reason to store forever," Kagan said.
I'm reading that as a slip-up on his part. To me it says that there is already or going to be long-term data storage real soon now.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
- 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")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.
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.
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