Slashdot Mirror
Your Cell Records For Sale Online, Cheap
AviN456 writes "The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that your phone records are for sale online to the general public. From the article 'The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.' One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required. If they want your records and have the money, they get 'em."
I'm sure its on Google for free somewhere.
Of course anythings available for the right price...
Unfortunately, this issue is nothing new.
Lots of good info on this problem can be found here, courtesy of the good folks at EPIC.
And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I bet the NSA might be able offer a reduced price on these kinds of lists.
One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required.
That's absolutely stalk-tastic. So, in addition to being able to buy SS#, satellite images of their house, and public property information, we can get phone records now. Sweet.
Anyone want to see what 1-900 numbers Jack Thompson's been calling?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Chief Wiggum: Did you trace the phone number?
Lou: Sure did, chief.
Chief Wiggum: 555... aww, it's gotta be phony.
Both TFA and the /. post are slanted towards law enforcement agencies. There is nothing about the service or warning that shouldn't apply to everyone.
Depending on how paranoid you are, this information could be interesting. Worried about a partner cheating? Worried about your partner finding out? Worried your boss will find out you have frequent calls to your Cylon agent (or is she just in your head?) (Okay, the last one was a joke.)
But I wanted to make sure it was clear, this applies to everyone. Not just police.
So what? Phone records have long been a way to track unorganized, unplanned crimes. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cell phones have made it soooo tempting to make all your calls (legal, and possibly illegal) whenever you fancy, that it is certainly scary to unorganized, undiciplined criminals. Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there? Obviously mere phone records aren't enough to catch Al Qaeda, so what do you have to worry about? Just run down to a different payphone, at different times, in disguise from the traffic cameras.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
To test the service, the FBI paid Locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours, the police bulletin said....
Frank Bochte, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he was aware of the Web site.
"Not only in Chicago, but nationwide, the FBI notified its field offices of this potential threat to the security of our agents, and especially our undercover agents," Bochte said. "We need to educate our personnel about the dangers posed by individuals using this site and others like it. We are stressing that they should be careful in their cellular use."
Who needs snitches when the phone companies kill your undercover agents for a fast buck? This is verging on leaking sensitive information. If the FBI can come up with data on agents, then other departments, hell, even important people could be at risk, which is a scary thing. I'm all for the freedom of information, but not when it could potentially cause harm to another person who is just doing their job (in the case of undercover agents). Sure you need the phone number first, but that's not all that hard to get these days...
I have no fixed line. I only use cash cards for mobile. I haven't received a spam e-mail message in 8 years.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with me? Why doesn't the corporate oligarchy like me? Why haven't I been offered to enlarge my reproductive tool, invest in Nigerian projects, or enroll in the US Gubmint Green Card lottery?
It is so fucking unfair.
I love how in the article they present the case of FBI agents being snooped on.
As if it's ok to snoop on regular people but you go too far snooping on FBI agents!
My records show 400+ late night calls to Cowboy Neal...now he'll never answer!
If there is a market for it, then why not let the phone companies make some bucks out of it? There is little information to be gained from the meta information of my phonecalls. But you would want some ways to opt out of it so persons and companies concerned about it could have the call to and from their number not listed.
The downside is offcourse that if this will be allowed, every phone company will make it their standard, and if you want out of it you have to pay more for the priviledge. So maybe restricting them from both ways (the info only goes out with a search warrant) is a better solution.
And now on to RTFA...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
I personally don't care who knows who I am calling -- in fact I openly release my cell phone data to all my customers as I bill them by the minute when they call me (plus they can see who else calls me which helps when someone says I might have overcharged them).
My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.
I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?
When I signed up for the account I just called them and they said they can also stop sharing information within Sprint themselves, and I did that too.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
its part of the price you pay for convenience. things are no better in the uk. i used to pay cash for my groceries because I resented having my purchases monitored. now i buy my groceries online and everyone knows my business. all the conveniences we enjoy have a price. welcome to the real world. to be totally safe. walk everywhere and conduct all business face to face and keep nothing written down. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.
Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".
It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Two months ago, Macleans (Canadian magazine) ran a story on this, but they took it one step further: they bought the cell phone records of Canada's Privacy Commisssioner, Jennifer Stoddart. It was remarkably embarassing. Reading the Maclean's article was entertaining, so if any Canadian's missed it, check it out.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Nextel says they do not participate and that this activity is illegal.. something tells me nextel is feeding me a line of shit.
I'm not trying to call names here, but that's sort of how a salesman works - he gives you a problem you don't usually think about, then says "This thing will solve your problem". Never thought of it like that before.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
I'm immediately going to purchase Paris Hilton's phone records ... be back soon ... got stuff to do now.
Do I get the GPS coordinates with that? I want to know where they are at when they call. I can get a small cheap GPS phone and stick it to the bumper of her car. With wireless web and laptop, I can track her everywhere. I am BATMAN!
Once news of this hits the mainstream television media, I imagine the public outcry and following legislation will put the kaibosh on it.
Still, the underlying problem is far deeper than many will admit. I believe that we in the United States have a certain right to an expectation of privacy, but at the same time we cannot rely on that expectation to safeguard information regarding ourselves. Information exists beyond the scope of your personal effects, and you cannot reasonably expect others to protect it for you.
The problem is that most financial and personal transactions here rely almost entirely on security through obscurity: the identity thief can't steal your identity... until he gets ahold of your (trivial to obtain) SSN, and so forth. We rely on hiding information about ourselves as a means of securing our effects, despite the fact that such information is all but unprotectable in the face of modern technology.
No amount of legislation is going to stop people from uncovering information: the only way to mitigate this is to make the information on its own worthless.
A social security number should be useless to anyone but me. Same with a bank account number. The security needs to be seperate from the identification.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Well there'll always be people needed to dig ditches Seriously I felt the same way for a long time but the practical benefits of the mobile makes it difficult to live without once you get used to having one.
No, your phone records are your providors business records. They can do with them what they want. Go read your TOS.
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
RTFA. It's not the phone companies that are selling the data.
we-eel, not exactly.
I can follow you, right? So, I can sit outside your house, wait for you to come out, follow you to the store, your office, etc, and wait outside until you come out and then follow you some more. I didn't impinge on your privacy because I didn't follow you _in_ or watch what you were doing or listen to your conversations.
So it is here. I can purchase a list of your telephone calls - in other words, follow the path your phone took. But, I'm not purchasing recordings or transcripts of the calls themselves.
I don't think the 4th amendment applies here.
-S
Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there?
I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use. But I think I do have trouble with my customers, suppliers, or competition being able to see who I'm talking to. In a competitive industry (I don't know, say wholesaling wine to restaurants in a busy city), being able to look over which restaurants of "yours" that a rival wine rep has suddenly been making a lot of calls to would be seriously helpful/evil business intel.
On a more serious note, say a foreign or criminal entity was shopping around for people to blackmail/extort. Just the ability to use evidence of a stock broker's calls to his mistress as a way to get him to distort the value of some penny stock, etc... well, it's all bad movie-type stuff, except it's real. And real cheap.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's this way you see :
- selling the organs of their customers would make them a lot of cash but is considered to be *really* bad almost everywhere;
- selling every little bit of data they have about their customers is considered bad in much fewer places (and is apparently quite accepted in the US) so although it's not as lucrative, they went with that.
It's probably safe not to let them know you still have both your kidneys though.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
If there is a genuine demand for it, then you can be sure it will be sold. If you outlaw it it will just not be the providers themselves but these shady types calling themselves 'brokers'. Allow it and you stop a black market from developing.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Ok, I read the article -- where's the "remarkably embarrassing" part?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The fourth ammendment is generally read to concern one's privacy with regard to government intrusion. In this context, the intruder is a private corporation, and thus the 4th ammendment wouldn't explicitly apply.
For that reason, we have a wide array of law with regards to tresspass, publication of personal records of various sorts, etc. It just so happens that cell phone records are not yet covered. That said, the described activity cited as "pretexting" is probably illegal since it involves a fraudulent transaction (if you had an arrangement with your carrier to keep the information private, and a thrid-party was subverting that arrangment by pretending to be you).
So who is selling the logs and how do they get them? Can they be sued for privacy infringement?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Well this is disturbing news indeed. As long ago as July this issue had been raised. Wish I knew about it sooner.
Where do these people come from? Whatever happens to these people that's bad, I hope it happens soon because they definitely deserve it... those people, and people who operate tow services with questionable tactics... these kinda people just get under my skin. If wishin' were killin' I'd be among America's most wanted right now.
On the one hand, I am appalled at the erosion of our civil liberties and the almost-sedated non-response from the public. It reminds me of the way in which cancer kills you (the body ignores it when it's small, and as it only grows a little bit each day, the problem is put off until it's too late; a tumor that would have been actively fought if implanted full grown kills an otherwise health person because it's never that much worse than it was the day before).
But on the other hand, I'd love to see someone try to decipher my cell phone calls:
Me: Could you repeat that? ...other...erver room...ception in here...od damn fans...!
Them:If...the...ine when I...ick.
Me: No! Don't click on that! We need to log the error message.
Them:Hog...any..sausage?
Me:Not sausage. Message. Error message. Error message. Error message.
Them:...ot an err...hat about...age?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:Could you...that?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:...I just read...you? Zero zero...eff as in...apple, zero, ze...two. Got that?
Hey, maybe I could just ask the NSA for a cleaned up transcript!
--MarkusQ
At this point, having a cell phone is not just a matter of convenience for the owner, it's a matter of consideration for the owner's friends (assuming he has any). It's much easier to meet up with people, much more convenient to know when to expect an arriving friend, etc. when all parties involved have cell phones.
My girlfriend refused to have one for the longest time, and I got really tired of waiting on her to meet me for dinner with no way to find out where she was or why she was late, really tired of trying to give her directions from random gas station pay phones to places, etc.
It's entirely possible to have and use a cell phone and not be a jerk about it, but I firmly believe that obstinately refusing to have one is just rude.
JRjr
Actually, if you did that enough, you would run faul of various stalking laws. This isn't because of the 4th amendment, but, instead, laws in every State.
The telephone records are generally regarded by people as private data. There is an expectation of privacy about who you've communicated with and when. You may give that up when you agreed to the phone contract, but that could be struck down, potentially.
There are many things that the government prevents you from doing. You can contractually give your first born son to someone, but it would be illegal to actually fulfill that contract term, so it is invalid. Should courts looks the same way about telephone call privacy, it would be the same deal.
I dont , and wont carry one, I am 34, and went throught pay phone era just fine.
When pagers came out i was in the building trades, (with a crazy wife at the time), she paged me so many times one day I flushed the pager in the toilet.
another time I was so fed up trying to concentrated I dropped it in a nearby storm drain.
Instead of simply replacing it they wanted me to carry the first model Motorolla Mobile phone (kinda like a brick with buttons) I refused and have not been leashed since.
I will sell my phone records for $110.
Preemptive strike
I sleep well at night not worrying about privacy concerns or any of the other issues that are out there, and it helps me live in the modern age.
The first is to live an exceedingly dull life. My cell phone records, if anyone bothered to pay for them, would provide a list of short calls to other dull people, usually to arrange meetings to do dull things such as 'play skee ball' or 'watch star trek'. If someone wanted to invade my privacy, the would end up spending hours on end trying to figure out what I was hiding, because nobody's life is that boring. The jokes on them, because mine is.
The second is to have an abysmal credit rating. Go ahead and steal my identify. Trust me, you won't be getting any credit cards using *my* name.
The third is to have completely bizar purchasing habits. If you want to collect market data on me, fine. You'll think your computers, which approximate consumer behavior are broken with me. It's not that I try hard to be weird, it's just that, well, I'm going to purchase a DVD of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in the same order as 'Dude, Where's My Car', and you'll jut have to live with it.
So go ahead, steal my data. Take my information. I'm just going to make your magin of error bigger.
The Internet is generally stupid
Go pay to get Jose Padilla's phone records this way. There's a story there no matter what you find.
In the past, just the privileged few could obtain phone records. Politically connected or wealthy people could bribe the right people and obtain anything they wanted.
Now, anyone can do it. Turnabout's fair play - as far as I'm concerned. I like seeing rich pols exposed.
I've been busy lobbying to get the video archives of the New York Police made public as well.
Why should the police be the only ones with access to this footage? (I'll tell you why... if enough of it was made public, lots of NY's finest them would wind up fired or in jail.)
Maybe I'm better off starting a data broker business overseas and publishing it myself.
This would be a good idea for a honeynet. You could figure out a mathematical way for a bunch of dummy phones (or dummy cards/requests) to spider-web to each other and figure out who exactly is doing the looking-up...
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.
That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
As far as I know we here in Canada don't sell records, Atleast the cell phone company that I work for doesn't. Plus with the new privatcy act this isn't going to happen.
None the less I'm quite appalled this can be legal or, even worse, common in any developed country.
OK, maybe it's a little (hidden) check box on the contract that makes it possible but such an option should be off by default.
After all, it's not just the phone's owners information that is disclosed but as well info on the innocent people he talked with.
I could imagine that people from countries where privacy is of higher value (and legally protected) could sue when their information is publicised in the US...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Most europeans won't ever have this kind of problem with privacy and information selling. In Europe you can just go to the kiosk, buy a sim chip, buy some prepaid sim minutes, all without ID or a credit card. Use the phone for a few days, then toss the sim chip and put in a new one if you're paranoid. Thanks to our greedy, monopolistic telecom corporations over here, you get locked into 2-year contracts and have to give the company all kinds of private information upon sign-up including social security number.
If phone calls (and hence phone records of those calls) are a personal effect, should an ISP's logs of IP addresses and the date/time a user had that IP address be similar?
There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?
The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.
But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!
I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!
Too many news stories these days are causing me to say "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?"
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
invasion of privacy anyone?
not odd at all.s toned.com
Thought records have been availible online for as long as i can remember.
Slashdot has been purchasing your thought records so they can do articles.
It called targeted publishing.
For the rest of your targeted publishing goto
www.womenwithreallyhugebreaststhatlikeguysthatare
Calling people for no reason is rude too. I do not desire to be at anyones fingertips at any time; Somehow we survived before cellphones.
When I meet a friend I am there at the time I said I would be-- cellphones are just a symptom of sloppy living and thinking.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Well I dont see a problem with it :P
:)
But then again I paied 19$ cash for my Cell phone and buy 25$ (cash) worth of minuets each month. Untracable, Anonymous, and Desposable, Just the way a cell phone should be. I can drop the phone in the trash every 90 to 120 days and get a clean phone that is untracable.
Learn the system, learn ways around it, and you can remain anonymous as well.
Given the state of modding these days, we should not be surprised that a pile of pure bilge by someone ignorant of the most rudimentary, fundamental principal of the field of knowledge on which he pontificates can reach "5, Insightful".
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
If true, then the government can sidestep 4th Amendment protections by farming out the snooping to private companies . . .
I am not a crackpot.
...using web pages and links you can form a 'person rank' from the calls people make. This has many applications. For example if you want to figure out how to influence the most people with the least money these may be the people whose opinions are the most widely sought and hence the people for you to call.
-- SIGFPE
Some court somewhere should've let corporations know that when they're dealing with private data then they should keep that data private--not sell it to the highest bidder.
Can I buy my neighbor's last grocery checkout receipt? There's something other than business records at work here.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I have seen the bulletin. In it they indicate that they conducted a test and placed an order to get the records of one of the agency's own cell phones. A little while later an unknown person called that cell number and said they worked for the cell phone provider. The person then asked for some information about the subscriber. Some time later they got an email with "call records".
A little social engineering can go a long way. If a "service technician" calls asking me for information, I'm going to tell him I'm George W. Bush.
Heck is a place for people that don't believe in gosh.
Russ "Free speech for everything except politics" Feingold? This is the example you hold up? Good lord man.
dupe
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
A cell phone is for convenience. The fact that I can be reached and reach all of my friends from wherever I am (and extremely valuable for emergencies) is an obvious benefit that I find amazing people like you can't see any value in.
I also can't stand those who are obnoxious with their phones (driving with one, talking loudly, etc), but that's more of a function of the user than the tool.
Your post screams of bitterness. Get over it.
The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.
Who said anything about "undercover"?
Learn to love Alaska
Good for you, I don't bother to get one either...
I don't want to look like people I hate in the first place with their pathetic nothingness talking bullshit over the phone too hard...
Do you think that if I contacted one of the firms that actually buys a months worth of records for $110, and told them that they are more than welcome to my records if they pay my $110/ month phone bill, they would?
For another $120 + $12.95(TIVO)/month, they can pay my cable/tivo bill for me and I'll tell them everything I watched on all my TVs.
For about $320 I'll detail for them every Kw/h of power I used in a month.
Kick in a final $400 amonth for gasoline, and I'll gladly catalogue everywhere I've driven.
As an added bonus, if they go with the whole package, I'll include at no additional charge a catalogue of everyone who uses my pool in the summers. This is a $75/month (pool guy + chemicals) savings!
Deal or No Deal?
Very true. The government cannot intrude but a private company can. However, should you bring a case against that company in civil court for releasing your data, it should be found that the Government cannot possibly support the private company in this matter due to the 4th Amendment restriction. By default, since the Government cannot possibly act in favor of the company, any court case should be won by the person whose data was sold.
That's not the way the courts interpret it, though. The government is allowed to act as the muscle-man for corporations nearly each and every time--even if the government itself would have been forbidden for doing what the corporation did. It's easier to get big campaign contributions and keep friends at the local private golf club this way. Imagine having to tell your golfing partner,"Sorry about your company. I couldn't possibly find in favor of you, though, because the 4th Amendment prohibits me from doing what you did."
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I wonder if broadcasting your information on public frequencies has anything to do with it.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
It's embarrassing that the big-time U.S. media can't even copy an article originally written in our native tongue. I guess they're too busy proving that the CIA and the NSA have spies.
TFA did, and the post to which I replied made reference to the article.
It's even a problem for non-undercover agents (though less severe), as they're more likely to have someone they've busted in the past (or someone who knows a person they've busted) with a grudge than somebody who's not in law enforcement.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
The problem with this is that its not the government issuing these records, its a privately run business. And to my knowledge the Constitution, nor any of the Bill fo Rights does NOTHING to prevent private business from infringing.
That being said, what we need here is a law or an extension of a law to incorporate that it is illegal to give out records, and to only make them available, via print, to the owner of said phone, or via the internet with a safegaurds inplace to allow only the owner to access.
However it seems from the article that there isn't anything preventing them from this type of business, legally.
harryk
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
You've got it backwards. If you're doing something criminal and suspect someone you're dealing with *might* be an undercover agent then you use this to get their cellphone records (and possibly the cell phone records of people you already know they're close to and whose phone they might have borrowed) and see if they've called anyone with open connections to law enforcement.
And that's why it's threat to the safety of undercover agents.
Must be the /. effect. ;)
I don't agree that it HAS to be this way. It only *tends* to be this way, because convenience often goes along with laziness. People tend to willingly give up a freedom or right if they're made to believe it's a requirement of gaining something useful that makes their life easier.
If the general public got irritated enough with tracking of their spending habits when using credit cards, for example, they could boycott their use and cause a change. But the convenience vs. perceived threat doesn't motivate most people to take action.
Are you confounding money and speech or has Russ really suggested restricting political speech?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
One of the features of a 5ESS or DMS-100 is that they keep nice tidy records of who called who for how many minutes.
Law enforcement has almost always had back doors into both the wired and wireless systems in the United States. They are the only entity I know of authorized to see this data.
So what we have here is either a) The cell carriers which are pretty much wholly owned by Bell Co's selling this info
or
b) Someone illegaly getting the data and selling it.
I'd lay my money on b.
That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)
...
To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp
September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp
Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp
and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
moo
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
In the case of phone records, I think it would be more accurate to describe them as historical records, in which the telephone company, the caller and the call recipient have all played a role.
If the telephone company chooses to release the information about the call later, for profit, it doesn't seem like they under a strong ethical bond not to. Yes, it would be more discreet of them not to sell the information, but in this context, I don't think not being discreet should rise to the level of requiring legal penalties.
The reasons that this information gets out in this way would seem fall into two categories: a) the telcos are sloppy and allow access to the information, either directly from the outside, or through employees stealing it from the inside, b) the telcos are profiting directly by selling it to third parties.
If we ignore a) (but hope that the telcos do not) and focus on b), one way to deal with this would be for the telcos to offer a 'discretion' option on your account for a small fee. For example, you pay a dollar (or three or five) a year, and they make sure that nobody without a court order gets a copy of your logs (ignoring spies, the NSA, executive orders, and so on for the moment).
My guess is that the telcos would stand to make a lot more money from a lot of people paying a small amount than a relatively small number occasionally paying a few hundred dollars for records.
The people that paid the 'discretion' fee would feel better because they had a binding agreement with the companies not to reveal their (shared) history, except by court order. The people that don't care don't have to pay the fee and presumably won't feel outraged when their records are purchased by Sixty Minutes or their ex-boyfriend.
Why the small fee? Among other reasons, it would be an incentive for companies to make this a standard option that you can check off on your account, rather than something hidden at the end of the contract in small print, accessible only on obscure web pages, the location of which is traded around in lists by angry consumers.
In Europe this is virtually impossible; the guys operating those websites would get prison time for doing this.
In France this government commission is responsible for overseeing such rules. Everybody listed in any (government or otherwise) name database has a right to read his entry and modify or delete it.
Again, in those parts of world, that take right of privacy seriously that kind of business is not possible without risking 2-4 years jail time.
Now, if quaint, olde worlde countries like Britain can succeed in offering a high level of information privacy, then modern, advanced, sophisticated countries like the United States should have exactly the same ability.
If the population in said olde worlde country can produce a well-known figure like the comedian Steven Fry and yet have such a major celebrity able to simply "vanish" for weeks on end, so that he could spend time chilling out without the usual pressure from the press...
If the population can even produce a mysterious piano-playing genius - discovered much later to have been from East Germany - despite every effort by police, the medical profession, the entire British media, etc, to be the first to get a name and place of origin... (Despite the glare of attention, it took over two months for the mystery to be solved.)
If you start by knowing all of that, AND you know that the information being traded in the States is just a bunch of statistics that have no actual meaning anyway, then why CAN'T we expect the US to follow suit, with strong privacy laws from above and strong privacy respect from the grassroots?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't mean trust as in believing in someones goodness. I mean trust as in a business entity. I registered a consulting business simply for the purpose of obtaining privacy. This can be done in many states and localities for less than $100. I got my Cellphone and put it in the name of my business. No Tax ID or "Social Security" number was needed. Other ways include going prepaid or even putting out false information. Just make sure you write down whatever information you give just in case you have problems with your service.
I think there is a problem if only the government has access to cell phone records. If it becomes easy for everybody to get access, then the market will create mechanisms by which it becomes easy for people to regain their privacy (e.g., through disposable numbers, cash-based cell phone purchases, call routing, etc.).
I'm wondering how many of these people will get a cell phone after there aren't any pay phones anymore. It seems inevitable that phone companies won't want to spend the money on pay phones when 90% of people have a cell phone and the pay phones would sit unused. And as the older generation dies out (sorry to sound insensitive) penetration rates will reach that level and maybe higher.
If they are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that the tired old argument the governments give the people? It also applies to the police, politicians, judges, corporate officer, and any other official. I have long stated that every bit of information on these folks should be publically posted where anyone can have ready access to it. This information should incluse all licence numbers, SSN's, medical information, and so on. This is what they do to us so it should also be done to them.
use the service at: http://locatecell.com/land.html or
:)
http://locatecell.com/gpage.html to
reverse lookup the owner and address of this number:
Phone: 8663767730 source: http://locatecell.com/contact.html
its purely free if they are hiding, as stated, no data returned = free
and guaranteed accurate = false
a whois shows address in Virginia. though no Langley
fuck that.
I don't think he's bitter, I think he's just curious. Curious as to why nobody has any faith in anybody or anything these days. Why everybody is worried about where every one else is and what they are doing. Why nobody feels secure unless they can wirelessly harrass people at other places.
I wonder the same things.
I trust my friends to take care of themselves, and to be where they say they will be, and to come and find me (or someone else) if they need help with something. Its why they're my friends. Nobody needs a cellphone because everybody is competent at living and nobody requires a constant electric lifeline to another person. Communication and planning is done when we are together, and the long gaps when we aren't together, those give us something to talk about the next time we are. There's a lot to be said for asynchronous communication as well, leaving objects or messages at the places where friends will be (this board is a good, though essentially useless, example).
And as for emergencies, a knife will serve you far better than a cellphone.
Look at the bottom of this: http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/privacy/consumer_ opt.jsp
"Additionally, if you do not want to receive e-mail communications from us, you must provide us with the e-mail address we should not contact."
Maybe I should give them all my credit card numbers as well so they know not to charge them?
Better flight searching coming soon.
Even a decade ago pay phones were becoming scarce in many parts of the USA and Canada. They were frequently vandalized and the repairs seemed to take forever.
nope. and you just described one of the many real hacker tools from the 80's.
Set up boxes with modems back to back in some unsuspecting Office's phone closet in a telephone service box. you want to hack company XYZ and not get traced? call your box issue the ATDT18105551212 to connect to the company XYZ and hack away.
if you set up several of these you can really obfuscate your whereabouts.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
GF is late and called. Hi where are you? Oh I missed the train and had to wait 15 minutes for the next one. I'll be there shortly. Or calling him directly for directions rather than stopping at random gas stations.
I'd recommend you try one before bashing it, but it sounds like you've already made up or mind anyways. Then again you need friends who would want to talk to you, and I'm not talking about all of those virtual ones in WoW.
I think there are two good ways to help mitigate at least the pretexting aspect, if not teh outright insider-fraud aspect: a challenge-response mechanism. When changing my address with my cellphone carrier yesterday, they asked me all kinds of personal information, all of which could be easily located by the determined, and then finally they asked me for two pieces of information that are not readinly available: a pin number that I supposedly specified 6 years ago (and never used since) and the 3 digit number on my credit card that I started the account with. Of course, I didn't know the pin and I don't have that credit card anymore so they were happy with my mother's maiden name (which fortunately, no one else knows due to a series of nuances in my life and, the fact, that, I made one up that is only in my head)... and my social.
That said, if a secret PIN was required before such information can be divuldged, under any circumstance, except a search-warrant, then there wouldn't be such a problem. Perhaps, on certain types of information, such as previous or current phone records, they would actually initiate a phone call a phone number on your record (word, home, cell, other) and when you answer it would have to approve the transaction before it could be divulged.
Of course, the problem is deeper, we probly agreed to allow our information to be shared with any other business even if we opt-out, the data belongs to that company and there must be a million ways to skirt your opt-out option. Of course, the information is naturally, it appears, more easily available to all parties but yourself. Such is life.
A simple challenge responce and authentication-required via some very secret information (such as a PIN) would help a lot. Also, if every made up their mothers maiden name, that would help out, too, since no one else would be able to discover it unless they overheard you speak it in a public place while authenticating for some other reason, for that reason, I rarely make such phone calls in public. But even my vehicle and house can be bugged, so you're really not "safe".
Thanks,
Leabre
Where my cell phone records would include friends, customers, and vendors which might prove very interesting to a competitor.
The second is to have an abysmal credit rating.
Again, I'm not that lucky to live a dull, uninteresting life coupled with a crappy credit rating. That's why no one would likely pay for your phone records.
I'll bet we could get this outlawed really fast. See if you could buy the cell phone records of some our elected officials and their staff. Hey, Senator, I couldn't help noticing this number here on your aide's cell phone records which is the number of an escort service across town. And hey, look! First a call to the escort service, then the aide calls this number...that's you right? What a coincidence! Every single time he calls the escort service, he calls you.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?
After reading the SunTimes article I decided to call Sprint (my cell phone company). The people I talked to had never heard of this service. They told me that I needed to speak to fraud. After many attempts to get someone to listen I finally got a supervisor on the line. I explained that I did not authorize Sprint to disclose my address, name, and/or phone records with a third party. The supervisor opened the site and was shocked at what was available. I was transferred to a tech support person that I again explained the information release problem to. The technician told me he would get a phone from their stock of phones they use for testing and put the information from that phone into the website. After the technician verified the ability to gather information about a phone I was transferred to Sprint corporate security. Sprint corporate security was shocked that this type of service was available without a court order. I was assured that Sprint would not sell my information to a third party. The information about the site and news article was forwarded to the fraud and legal departments.
EPIC has a website about this, too. Not much can be done about it on the consumer end, except setting a password that's not your mother's maiden name or any of the other standard identifying info available to marketers.
-Esme
I'm sure that's doable, but I can't imagine that "most europeans" do this. I'd be surprised if it's more than 0.1%.
It doesn't have to be an undercover agent, or the agent who gets killed. It potentially puts any informants the agent (undercover or not) talks to in jeopardy.
So what? Journalists use the most extreme examples they can find for everything.
I think "decent chance" is a pretty strong term. Even most low-life scum will think long and hard before killing a federal officer. I'm not saying there isn't a risk, but I think the chance of someone killing their cheating spouse is a lot higher than the chances of a mobster whacking a federal agent. Generally, to be a serious enough criminal to have undercover FBI worries, you've got to have been smart enough to avoid bringing the heat down on you in obvious ways... like by murdering people.
This is a problem for FBI agents, but I don't think they are the group most at risk. In short, this is a bad thing(tm) for everyone.
To go further, the SSN should be equated to a "public key". Since it's so screwed off by the oligarchy, wealthy, and corporations, the SSN needs to be fully publicised, but...
ONLY AFTER the SSA, the banks, schools/colleges, past, present and future employers, medical and life insurers, and a whole HOST of others strip out the personal information.
THEN, the SSA needs to issue to all eligible persons a "private key", so to speak. It needs to only be a new SSN-level-II (or, SSN-ULTRA, to get all "markety"), which is used ONLY by the SSA, and possibly DMV, Department of State/INS, and agencies that are going to get it one way or another anyway.
But, corporations of all commercial and non-government kind need to be deprived of this new SSN. Its use would be for retirement benefits as tracked by the government, driver's permits/state or national IDs, and related stuff. It would only be sort of a "drop bucket" into which the SSA, for example would have read and write privileges, to administer its programs. When I or you call the SSA or some cognizant government office, we would (hopefully over a secure line or in person and not aloud in the service counter line) provide our "private SSN" to the clerk. We get our service (well, not as in the latex arm up the crack with the impregnation syringe).
When we go to get hired, the company would get to use the SSN-old/corporately-screwed-WITH/screwed-UP number and could share THAT number and a narrowly-defined (as by some part of government and some part of ACLU/privacy watchdogs...) and then those companies would have to operate from a master lookup table (they could keep their own for hire/rehire/transfer/retire purposes) that gives out a uniform set of information that is not more informative than it already is by the school and corporate abuse of the existing SSN.
I realize that SOME campuses will let you NOT put your SSN on your student ID card (I had to battle a bit with a student operating the registration desk so that my SSN would not be on my card... "Hey, what if I lose or drop this card... why SHOULD you or another student or employee on the campus have my SSN? It's NOT supposed to be a form of "ID", only for tracking BENEFITS and narrowly-defined uses....")
All it would take--if the SSA could finally fix their database problems (I listened to an NPR interview a few years back where it would cost the SSA an astronomical amount of dollars just to fix ONE of their several systems... purportedly it would take years and annually cost more than the budget they receive---JUST for ONE system...), then this new SSN-ULTRA/OVERLAY NUMBER could become a privacy reality.
Someone please help me refine this idea...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Try this one on for size...
Like it or not, usually what is inflicted on the citizens of the U.S. of A. by business folks also happens to canadaians. I never understood why some canadians thought it would be any different than that.... Business is pretty much multinational now and the governments of the world are becoming more more under the influence of the big multinationals...
Basically all these folks at macleans did was call a US company that got the records directly from Bell Canada, Telus Mobility, and Fido/Rodgers...
So which cell phone company in canada do you work for again?
I'm not saying I agree with any of it, its just sad that by us not owning our own records they're for the world to buy
I found this sentence from the article very interesting:
Late last month, the department sent a warning to officers about Locatecell.com, which sells lists of calls made on cell phones and land lines.
According to that sentence, it isn't just cell phone records they're selling. It could well be your home phone line's records. I don't see why they'd only steal or buy the information from cell companies...
So, don't assume you're safe just because you don't use one.
No, because then they become an agent of the government and are held to the same rules.
A police officer can't ask someone else to do something (perform a search) that they are not permitted to do. IANAL but I assume any evidence gained in this fashion would be thrown out of any court trial.
Actually, I'd be very surprised if the Libertarians would have an ideological leg to stand on when bitching about this sort of thing. Unless your telco guaranteed to you somewhere in their sixty-gazillion line contract that they would not sell your info, then they're free to do so in the Libertarian mindset.
Or what? Government should make regulations and laws on telcos? Doesn't that infringe on the liberty of telcos? I mean, what if joe public throws together a voip system with discount rates in exchange for letting him wiretap you? You want to ruin his business? He's the American entrepeneur!
You can't just be Libertarian on issues that only hurt people that you don't care about.
But employers need the SSN to pay into those retirement accounts, to find out if your wages need to be garnished, and to report your income to the IRS (Filled out a W2 or I9 lately?).
And whatever number can be used to do that needs to be protected. But can't be because the companies need it, and need it correlated with your personal information.
"You have no privacy anyway, get over it." And that's been 1995...
- Hanno
Nice, your soucre for all this information is a conservitive political magazine. Little bias?
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
So you're suggesting that the telcos allow spies free access to their records? It probably wouldn't be good for security if anyone could just walk in and say 'Hey, spy for the Reds, lemme see the files'.
The issue I see arrising is more of a police officer who uses his phone to contact a 'source' for information and then the source gets 'outted' and killed as a result of the phone call being released to the public.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
The snooper will just then pay anothe $150 to get all the numbers which called the proxy.
"I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use"
I have a problem in that it was sold to the congress as a way of fighting terrorism, but in fact is used as an excuse to do warrentless wiretaps domestically without judicial oversight.
In fact, as it turns out, the "Patriot" act has nothing to do with terrorism.
I have a problem with any law that mentions that you can be subject to investigation *and not be allowed tell anyone about it*. It flies directly in the face of a founding principle of this country, which is the right to face your accuser in a public forum.
All the government has to do is say "terrorism" and everybody falls all over themselves to give up hard fought civil rights.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Killing federal agents - that's a project someone is very unlikely to enter lightly, certainly not an impulse crime.
My point is, there are other subsets of the population that are much larger than "federal agent" that are much more likely to be endangered by this sort of information, and do not benefit from the same kinds of protections around them as government agents typically do.
Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
The main issue here is not law enforcement, but stalkers.
The Patriot Act has many flaws, but enabling stalking is not one of them.
Put the prepaid phone up for sale. Let the marketeers try to figure out who made what calls
Dear Friend,
I have vast interest in acquiring your phone data for the bargain price of $110 that you quoted. I will be happy to transfer you the money. I employ you to offer 5 minutes of your time to dedicate to this highly important nature of the matter.
Please provide your bank account information that I may promptly deposit the funds.
It may also be of interest to you that it has been revealed to me through my team of lawyers and financial advisors that I have inherited large money. I would beg you to consider helping me to recover the money - your loyalty will not go unrewarded.
There may be a delay in our communication, as I have to bypass the security spies of our Nigerian government.
I trust you will reply to this matter in good faith.
[Royal] Prince
Mustapha Abadallah
Depends on what you mean by 'decent chance'. I didn't mean that it's necessarily likely, just that it is probably a much larger chance than a randomly selected person. 1 in 1000 is a much larger chance than say 1 in 1000000 (numbers made up on the spot).
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Based on the grandparent post, I would say that it's not a question of whether or not your provider has the right to sell "their" data (which wouldn't exist without you), it's a question of whether or not someone else has the right to read it.
Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
In this context, the intruder is a private corporation, and thus the 4th ammendment wouldn't explicitly apply.
A private individual or corporation can be sued in civil court for civil rights violations.
While the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the further amendments are generally enumerated as protections from an over-reaching government, they are also legal embodiments of basic human or civil rights.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
- 1. Opt out (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs1aplus-cpni.ht
m )
- 2. Emails/call your local phone companies, and scream about it.
- 3. Ditto locateacell (http://locatecell.com/contact.html)
- 4. Complain to FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html)
- 5. Write to your representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/. I'm sure *they* wouldn't want to see their records out in the public either!
- ...
- n. And we all profit from increased privacy
If we make enough noise about it, something might be done. Squeaky wheel etc etc.My choice of 'federal agent' was dictated largely by the post I replied to, who complained about the use of federal agents in the article. My point isn't that they are the highest risk group, but they are (probably) a higher risk group than a random population sample.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
In Germany there was already an era with exactly that attitude and a whole culture forming from that (long before Hitler was even born) 1815-1848:
Biedermeier.
The Biedermeier era is famous for its dullness - in fact the name "Biedermeier" exactly means that: Dull-Boring!
A Quote:
"The second trend is the growing political oppression following the end of the Napoleonic Wars prompting people to concentrate on the domestic and (at least in public) the non-political. Due to the strict publication rules and the censorship had the consequence, that the main topics written about were unpolitical, eg Historical Fiction or Books about the quiet life in the countryside. This does not mean, that there was not a lot of political discussion going on, but it happened at home and in the presence of close friends. This situation finally lead to the revolutions in Europe in the year 1848."
Will we fall back into such dark times? This time not only restricting the private political life, but any suspicious private life, be it personal, economical or political?
--- censored
Exactly the need for the OLD SSN to exist: It's the PUBLIC key to the new number, but they DON'T get the new number. You still have to present your credentials to get paid, but the employer cannot look up or "do stuff" with the new number. They don't NEED to know if you've previously been on disability, unemployment, etc, unless they're trying to determine if you're a risk to them as a repeat claimant who can damage their "unemployment experience rating" as determined by the state/s in which the company operates.
But, to have access to the New SSN just for "looking stuff up", NO they don't deserve nor need access to it. This new SSN is to provide anti-abuse security layers, not significantly change the existing system.
Put another way, imagine you apply to a number of jobs, you open a bank account, you start a small company, rent a few cars, publish some not-so-warmly-received rants, and do other things. Now, an employer who has your SSN these days can "lend" that number to some outside agency that specializes in investigating and posing as people. Imagine the things your SSN ISN'T needed for just to exploit you. Now, imagine the things your SSN --if abused-- can get you.
The NEW SSN wouldn't be allowed to be used with credit cards, gym memberships, car rentals and other "purchases". It would be to protect your benefits from boilerplate shops that prey upon the elderly, students who don't NEED umpteen numbers of credit card debts on top of their loans and what not.
Now, imagine all the benefits and possibilities that can be had by isolating your new, shiny "private" SSN from your current, corporation-raped, OLD SSN.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
No, your phone records are your providors business records. They can do with them what they want. Go read your TOS.
...
... call detail records, and bill summary. If you are a new customer of Sprint Nextel, you will receive a notice of your CPNI rights and further information on this topic from Sprint Nextel. When you have not already given Sprint Nextel your permission to use CPNI for certain marketing purposes, Sprint Nextel will give you 33 days after soliciting your consent before using your CPNI and Sprint Nextel will follow your directions if you choose not to provide your consent.
Maybe you ought to read yours. I use Sprint/Nextel and they spell it out in black and white:
Sprint Nextel protects the privacy of its local, long distance and wireless customers consistent with applicable law, such as the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) regulations that govern Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).
CPNI includes, for example, the number and type of lines
In other words, if you don't give them explicit permission to give out your information, they are violating Federal law by doing so.
What if I don't have both kidneys? I already gave one away.
This was right after they let their officers know they could now get your cell phone records without a warrant, right?
Liberty in your lifetime
And as for emergencies, a knife will serve you far better than a cellphone.
What if your vehicle breaks down and you have no way to repair it? I think that's the sort of emergency the grandparent is talking about.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Having a cell phone does not automatically put you at the fingertips of others. Cell phones have the following convenient features: silent mode, call ignore, and most importantly, the ability to be left at home or in the car. As long as I pay my cell phone bill, I see no reason why my having a phone should empower anyone buy myself and others I select. I consider it rude when others use their cell phones when we're getting together, but they are convenient to have around when you need to get some information (from a person or a business) and you are not at home or wanting to use a pay phone.
I still see many pay phones around around stores, but I haven't seen even one of the once-ubiquitous phone booths in quite a while.
You could probe a famous person's agent and get all his clients numbers. Then probe the celebrity to get all their friends numbers. You could probe a CEO's phone and find out who he is talking to. Of course probe a spouses phone to see if they are cheating. Probe someone harrassing you's number to prove they called you to get a restraining order or to prove they broke a restraining order. The list goes on and on. I think it would be better for humanity for phone records to be 100% private. Prepaid cellular should advertise that their services are 100% anonymous by buying prepaid cards in cash.
The McCain-Feingold bill (a.k.a. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001) did impose some limitations that might be fairly said to be limitations on political speech. Specifically, there is a provision that prevents other political groups (e.g. 527 committees) from airing "issue ads" around election time. From the Brookings institution analysis:
Now, of course, it doesn't actually prevent people from voicing their views, but it does in theory make it harder for citizens to have their voices heard during the most crucial time (usually FEC restrictions are put on candidates, not all citizens). It's debatable whether this is limiting money or limiting speech, but it sure looks uncomfortably close to effectively limiting political speech to those of us concerned with protecting the 1st amendment. One instance in which this came up was in 2004, when the conservative group Citizens United tried to get the FEC to stop Michael Moore from running adds for his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, claiming it was clearly political content covered under McCain-Feingold.
All that being said, Russ Feingold was the only person in the U.S. Senate to have the balls to vote against the USA PATRIOT act. In a time when other politicians were pandering to hystaria and rushing to take what they knew would be (at least in the near term) a popular position, he stood up for principle; he stood for liberty. So, yeah, I don't think I agree with that part of McCain-Feingold, but it's just foolishness to suggest that Feingold has not been a defender of liberty.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
All of those instances are all based on a probable cause issues. They don't just get to do that stuff because they feel like it. There has to be a reason to do something like that. And I'd also like to note that the law allows these things to happen without a warrant IF a warrant is in process of being issued, which is retroactive. Funny how the republicans always forget the part after the IF. The point being that the warrant still needs to be obtained to cover the actions being taken. This specifically is why bush's BS about "we don't have the time to wait for a warrant" is total crap. But I guess it's good for the bush administration that there's lots of people like you ready to open wide for another spoon full of s**t. You're like one of those dolls with the string in the back that talk when you pull it. You hear your BS lines from the republican party and you just pull your own string over and over and over.. Never truly thinking about the complete pile of s**t that you're spewing. Of course thought requires education. Truly.. Without you.. None of this would be possible. Thanks..
Land of the Free, innit? You can do whatever you like to make money, it's your constitutional right, nobody can stop you, and if they do you're free to buy a gun and do something about it.
Only in nasty commie left-wing socialist places like Red Europe is this sort of thing seriously illegal.
Best part of that article:
In its inaugural issue, Buckley said that the magazine "stands athwart history yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
Doesn't seem like they're yelling 'Stop' anymore, does it?
Not exactly. Your cell phone calls are broadcast on public airwaves, remember? You have no reasonable Right to privacy for anything that you essentially shout from the rooftops.
Note that this does not in any way imply approval for the behaviour of whomever is selling such information. But Right to Privacy isn't covered here. Actually, even the content of a cell phone conversation (remember, broadcast on public aairwaves) isn't reasonably "private", unless encrypted. And compressed != encrypted.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I wonder if the writers of "National Lampoon's Animal House" were thinking of that when they came up with the the name for the character Doug Neidermeyer
There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?
The top article [suntimes.com] implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data.
But the information from EPIC [epic.org] and the FCC [fcc.gov] suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out.
Maybe the point the article is trying to make is this shouldn't be something you have to opt-out of to start with. What's next? My checking account history is available to any joe-schmoe who goes to the bank and pays $10 for the document becuase I didn't opt-out when I got my account?
In a society where people get annoyed about there being cameras installed in PUBLIC places and feel their "privacy" is being invaded, what makes these companies think they should be doing this to begin with? Is it not common sense most people don't want their buying habits, phone records, financial history, ect shared with anyone to start with? These should all be things kept private by default and you opt-INto if you wish. But becuase companies want to make money every way they can, and politicans will be bought and sold, I have yet to see a bill before the house saying that companies have to obtain permission before they do anything, just that they send a small leaflet telling they are and how to get out of it.
We could add an additional layer of security to the SSN-ULTRA in the form of a time-based component. Say that we issue as a social security card a thin keyfob with a 20-digit LCD screen. The screen would have a number that changes every 12 hours in a sequence governed by the proper polynomial. That polynomial is your REAL social security number. So we have a bank of 9 shift registers, each containing a sequential-XOR chain 10 gates long. Basically, this keyfob generates and displays a different number every 12 hours based on a seed number which is kept secret. This displayed number is the one you use for gym memberships, credit cards, cell phones, and the like. All different, depending when you signed up. And each one is only good for 12 hours. In other words, if someone wants to check your police record with the government, they can do so for 12 hours, then the number that indicates you changes simultaneously in both your card and the government computer. If they want to check you again, they have to ask you for your number again.
A simple transaction with a government computer would verify that the 20-digit one links to you and whether you had any felonies. In other words, big important data. However, all of these different corporate scum wouldn't be able to sell data between themselves about your adult-toy buying habits based on SSN, because all of the numbers that describe you are different and unique.
Lastly, the interesting part is that you could see who queried your data and when, based on what numbers were given.
This concept is based on the RSA SecurID, a keyfob that does something very similar.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
Can I buy my neighbor's last grocery checkout receipt?
Why do you think some stores give out those cards you have to have to get the sale prices? That's why I don't shop at those stores.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
"We received an anonymous tip..." is often all the probable cause needed.
If you're talking about "giving your first born son" by contract, then it should be news. If you have an arrangment for adoption, that is different from giving. The latter implies an exchange of property. If your ex had a contract that stated that she agrees to allow adoption in return for some obligation being fulfilled, then that might not even be legal. If neither side sued, and the State didn't take an interest, there there is little to confirm or deny the legality.
So, is it possible to (legally) get a working cell phone without ever giving out personal information?
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking! ...
Except when it happens every day.
That makes it even more shocking. BTW, that's a nice list of grievances for the next Declaration of Independance you put together there.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Anyone know of one that's not so fucked up?
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
Of course, then again, a P.I. would probably just use his mobile phone to call his own secretary, and have her place any calls he'd need from the office land-line. If he had to make the call himself, he'd wait until he could get to a land-line.
Someone familiar with how easy this info is to get would know how to avoid leaving a trail of it.
~
That's OK, we can make up for the single harvest with the larger volume of doubles.
Live Organ Transplants,
The choice of discriminating phone companies worldwide.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
The point of that list (which seems to have eluded you) is that the current FISA-related "controversy" is merely one more drop in the bucket. You shouldn't really be any more up in arms now than you were ten years ago (during the previous administration).
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
moo
Facts are facts, laws are laws, quotes are quotes, regardless of where you happen to pick them up. The analsis of those facts at National Review are indeed conservative. Anyone who has any serious interest in political debate can no doubt recognize which news analysis sources have left or right political leanings. In my mind, bias only exists if a left-wing or right-wing analysis tries to pass itself off as "neutral". National Review certianly doesn't hide what it is.
If you have a thought provoking, left-leaning analysis to provide, I'm sure we'd love to read it.
moo
The Constitution gives the executive branch the power to do pretty much anything to defend the nation. Thus that legislation wouldn't apply, or parts of it would be unconstitutional in some scenarios.
Perhaps this will help explain the situation better for you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry20060103
'Would that the court could permanently monitor the debate over the NSA program. Democrats who argue that Bush has abused the Constitution are, like Judge Robertson, themselves Constitution-abusers. The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."'
This adds much to the argument as well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors20
"In addition, immediately after September 11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. The Bush administration cites this authorization in justifying the NSA program. Critics respond that the authorization said nothing about intercepting communications. Well, it didn't say anything about detaining enemy combatants either. But in the Hamdi case the Supreme Court upheld the administration's power to do just that, since such detentions are organically connected to waging war against al Qaeda. The same applies to the NSA wiretaps. The position of Bush's critics is that he can launch a Hellfire missile at an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan or Yemen, but can't listen to that operative's telephone conversations. Absurd."
moo
No, that's why you occasionally swap them with people you work with :)
Dude, you stole my identity!
For N-dollars they could sell us a list of all the emails/credit card numbers who bought our phone information from them.
:)
Or maybe even a protection plan. $50 to join. Someone buys your info, you get a call notifying you that happened. Then for $100 more they tell you who.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
Why wouldn't services like this not be available for land-lines (at least to PI's)? See also this comment.
As the strict constuctionist that people of your ilk usually are, I'm sure you can point me to the words "pretty much anything" in the text of the constitution?
The telephone companies could take a hint from the IRS. The IRS was having problems with employees looking up the tax returns of famous people for reasons other than official business. They squashed this by putting audit trails on the retrieval of tax returns. They flagged the tax returns of people likely to be targets of abuse, and fired anyone caught looking up a tax return for non-official reasons.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Congress passed it because they were fearful of being painted soft on terrorists. None of them read the act prior to its passage.
Most of the more draconian parts of it, the parts that erode our rights, have been attempted legislation in the past. But without a national crisis such as 9/11 it wasn't going to pass. Why do you think that is?
WRT investigations - the concern is a military tribunal can seize you, try you, and execute you, without telling anyone they've even taken you. Keeping an ongoing investigation secret isn't the purpose of the act; that's already adequately covered.
And finally - the whole PATRIOT apologetic behavior is old as hell. The 9/11 commission conclusions were that we are woefully underprepared to defend against another attack, and the organizational issues still exist. PATRIOT has not made an appreciable difference in this, while at the same time it has severely curtailed our rights and laid the baseline for a police state of horrifying power.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Now THAT'S the kind of thinking I like to see. Sharper than the bare solutions I suggested. Only (or, one) problem is to make sure your key fobs don't get exposed to certain security scanners, microwave ovens (if it got mixed in your lunch bag), and the like.
This kind of device would be useful for preventing improper access to ships, stations, buildings, offices, vehicles and more.
Imagine if such a device required you do every 15 seconds enter 2 or 3 pre-designated numbers for your car's ignition system. It would allay your fears of having your vehicle commandeered by someone in a "uniform" presenting a "badge" and spouting state law and your driver's license issuance having been contingent upon your consent to search and seizure, vehicle subject to lawful commandeering by peace officers....
I suppose anyone installing and then bragging about such a device would have their license suspended or revoked and then only find out by letter or by an at-first innocent "pull-over" or when the plates are randomly run in any state you drive the car.
Imagine tho, the key fob acting as a new ID to replace the standard card ID. Most of the time, clubs and bars and other places don't even scrutinize them, making their intended use questionable at times. But, the scary thing about the fob is that without our knowledge, backdoors could be installed at clubs and bars and payment stations so that wherever you go (but don't take your cell phone to) that requires ID for entry could also disclose your location.
OTOH, a keyfob misused by the abductor or murderer of a victim could be traced if they enter the victim's pre-assigned "I've been kidnapped/I'm a potential murder victim..." THAT could be really useful for certain situations when the person with the gun demanding the money or vehicle chooses to off the victim rather than let the victim enter the code him/herself.
I'd like to order the keyfob that explodes in the hand of the mis-user. Might be called booby-trapping, but hey, just universally announce the purpose. Any fool then using a fob not his or her own (or suffers dementia, or memory loss, I suppose) will come unglued... OK, make it just hot enough to fuse their hand so they'll be identifiable by appearance and the act of wailing.
(OK, I'm going into la-la land a bit there, but the possible outcomes and uses are numerous...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Walk to the nearest service station or building with a landline and call a tow truck?
Wave down another vehicle and get a ride to a service station to do the same?
If I'm somewhere desolate enough to have no habitation in walking distance and no other traffic, odds are there's no cellular service there anyway. Most of the rural areas where I've lived have had fairly poor cellular service (likely related to my past/present reluctance to carry a cellphone; they're not reliable at all in my experience). And I probably wouldn't be driving in an area like that alone or without spare parts. Again, planning. A bit of forethought can save you from many would-be emergencies.
You have to know where you are to know who you are. And you have to know where you are going to know who you will be when you get there.
The cellphone may be convenient, but left unchecked it can be a weakness. It can change you so that you always react to events, instead of anticipating them. Constantly reacting can wear you down, make you feel like prey, make you worry and fear. The cellphone's promise of independence from landlines and freedom to contact anyone from any location can actually make you more dependent, instead of more independent.
Not saying that you in particular suffer that, but its what I see in far too many people who cling to the things.
Myself, I suffer from seeing too many things as symbols. The cellphone has come to symbolize to me all that I have just mentioned. I don't think I could bring myself to carry one, despite its potential use, unless experience radically changed my mind, changed the cellphone's symbol within.
Anyway, that's enough ranting for a week, so I've had it.
If you haven't already, you can set a password with your provider which people will have to provide before they can access your information. They will NOT let you reset it unless you call from your cell phone. It's not perfect, but it can prevent the casual prying eyes from calling up the cell phone company with your name, bday and last 4 digits....
In addition, make sure you set up your online account, because the first time you use it, it's very insecure. Once you set up a password, you're a lot more secure.
Another thing you can do is not use your cell phone for calls you want kept anonymous. The cell phone has ALWAYS been one of the best ways to get information on people. It's easy to intercept your conversations and almost as easy to track your physical location.
If you want to be anonymous, make friends with one of those local cell phone shops. They get dozens of phones per day for returns, insurance claims, etc. Slap in a new SIM, use it to make your 10 calls and toss it in the river/fire/whatever. Beware of payphones also, as most of them (the few that remain) are watched by hidden cameras since late 2001.....
I'm an author so this is of course a fictional example and pure speculation I'm releasing to the public domain that you're free to use if you ever make a movie or write a novel. I'm not saying you should do this nor am I saying I would and I'm not saying this is true.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Please show me where, because it's not in my copy. Funny that you cite Truong. Here's what the FISA review court had to say about Truong in 2002.. all of it, which National Review conveniently left out:From here. Emphasis mine. Funny what happens when you use original sources instead of relying on mouthpieces.
Well said. I wish I had mod points....
The whole Republican talking points of "The Democrats did it too" is really getting old, especially from a president who, as part of his campaign, promised to restore "honor and dignity to the White House".
And don't even get me started on the R's accusations of living in a "pre 9/11" world.....
(-hrair-)
Beware of the shining wires...
If you are concerned that a call might end up in your cell phone log, why not call one of the calling card services (I've been pretty happy with Onesuite.com) from your cell? This way the only thing showing up in your cell-log would be the dial-in number for that service. This is also a useful tool if you have to call somebody back from your cell who doesn't accept blocked number calls and you don't want to disclose your cell #. Examples might be you have to call a customer/one of your sales folks back from your personal cell phone...
Heiko
Like so many things, it's a combination of various parts of the constitution (Articles 2 and 4) plus various Supreme Court rulings over the years. However, like many laws, things simply aren't clear and a detailed discussion of all relevent laws is beyong the scope of this post. However, I can refer you to this short quote that boils it all down to something simple:
"The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations. (FISA, which requires a special warrant for foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S., doesn't apply abroad, making cross-border calls a murky area).
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.""
(Quoted from http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry20060103
moo
Wait a minute, how about we read the whole paragraph:
"The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President's executive power. In approving the district court's exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government's investigation became "primarily" driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Id. at 915. Targets must "receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution." Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 915."
Emphasis above mine. The way I see it, if the government is surveilling in order to put together a criminal prosecution, then they need a warrant. If the reason for surveilling is some other goal - like defending the country from attack in war time - then no warrant is needed.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
moo
Heh, obviously neither of you actually looked up this company - they do offer landline services...
In Russia, pretty much any government information can be had for a very low price.
In the local CD markets, where you can buy for 60 rubles (about $2) CDs with the latest and often unreleased pirated software, you can buy government tax record database, cell phone user databases (including home telephone and credit card information) and telephone directories with names, addresses and passport information. No big deal.
It seems the US is starting to catch up -- someone on the inside working a deal with a publisher.
In fact, the US was one of the FIRST countries where this kind of thing started happening in a big way -- how do you think the satellite TV decoder EPROMS, codes and hacks have been coming out within days or even hours of being changed?
The law that forbids the NSA from listening to communications in the U.S. is very clear. Nothing in the text of the constitution as written gives the president the right to ignore a law whenever he deems it helpful during wartime. You need a good deal of judicial activism to construct such a right out of thin air. And once such a right is constructed and openly acknowledged, Congress will never ever again agree to declare war.
altough I understand what you are trying to say, tha cancer analogy is wrong: It is your own cells that are turning cancerous. your body already has learned to ignore those. If you implant ones own cancer, your body still wont recognize it as foreign, because it is not. If you implant somebody else's cancer, your body will recognise it as foreign and fight it. You have to actually trick the immune system to get it to attack tumors. (one experimental method I know of involves isolating heat shock proteins from a tumor, adding bacterial toxins that trigger a immune response and injecting the mix several weeks apart).
But to get back on topic: boiling a frog would be a beter analogy. They get out of the hot water but stay in the water that gets slowly warmed up to a boil. (or at least that is what the rural legend says, never tried it myself)
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Now then. The President swore to the following oath, twice:.. and of course he just had to add a "so help me God" for good measure the second time around.. but that's besides the point. Later in Article II, Sec. 3, we find this:If the Executive thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can petition the Court to review it, or petition Congress to repeal it. It is not the Executive's job to decide, without informing anyone save a few members of Congress who are sworn to secrecy, that a law is unconstitutional or improper and that it does not deserve to be upheld. That simply is not the job of the President as laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow the President to ignore the law.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
Red herring, and that's not my argument. The President can authorize both of these actions under some general conditions (e.g. no assassination in US territory [violates 5th amendment of due process], no wiretap without warrant for 'US Persons' [violates 4th amendment], etc.).
The point of that list (which seems to have eluded you) is that the current FISA-related "controversy" is merely one more drop in the bucket. You shouldn't really be any more up in arms now than you were ten years ago (during the previous administration).
I agree. We haven't had a decent president since Jefferson, and we've been needing a revolution for some time now. I'm not shocked by this administration abusing its powers, I'm shocked that powers get abused every day by every politician and people still call this the land of the free.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yet at the same time, congress can not create a law that restricts the president's constitutional powers.
moo
Correct, but in this case, at least 5 other presidents have done the same thing, with their lawyers all arguing that it IS legal. Furthermore, no courts have ever found it to be illegal. Precedent counts for something.
Correct, and if you in Anytown, USA calls your mom in Anyothertown, USA, then they aren't listening. If you're calling a known member of Al Qaeda OUTSIDE THE USA then they probably are listening, as they should.
moo
A perhaps less shocking solution to your dilemma would be realizing that we actually are free, and recent presidents are just using powers the constitution granted to them to defend the country. If you think that searching people physically crossing the border is "reasonable" then you should also think that "searching" communications crossing the border is also "reasonable".
moo
If you think that searching people physically crossing the border is "reasonable" then you should also think that "searching" communications crossing the border is also "reasonable".
I don't, and I don't. That's what I've been trying to say.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Right.. I bet it would go something like this:
"Oh, I see from his call records that he's been calling 555-555-1212! I can reverse lookup the phone number for his dry cleaners, then hang out waiting for him to stop by. Or better yet, I can hijack this number he frequently calls, pretend to be the person on the other line, and set up a meeting in a park somewhere!
Man, this would be much more convenient if I could just follow him home from work. If only there were some place where FBI people congregated.. some sort of building, like an office. No matter, I've got his phone records!"
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
You mean we only have TWO?!? Damn you black market.. DAMN YOU!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
All laws apply to the president just like they apply to all other citizens. If he believes that a law is unconstitutional, he has to go to the Supreme Court, like the rest of us. Of course, the constitution's text does not spell out a a presidential power to do whatever he deems helpful during wartime.