Slashdot Mirror
Feds Push For Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking
An anonymous reader writes "An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance). The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.'"
I guess I didn't really need a cell phone anyway.
If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
[[/TROLL]]
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!
Even though they "keep and retain" those records, that's still data owned by the company, in this case Verizon. Don't they need a warrant or subpoena to look at that data? It's just like Google refusing to give out user data.
Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
I have my phone to only give out GPS data on 911 calls. Is that what they are interested in? The exact location of people (within a hundred yards or whatever) without a warrant, or just which towers they pinged off of at a given time?
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Hey, he is way more open about disregarding the Constitution and civil liberties.
See EFF page http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/02/08, but the interesting bit is FBI testimony from page 39 in this document http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/Filed%20Cell%20Tracking%20Brief.pdf
So, if someone gets shot or robbed, do they immediately question everyone who was near the closest cell phone tower at or near the time of the incident? Or can they use that to find possible witnesses?
The title is confusing because "warrantless" in this case means "without a warrant" (Warrant being a glam metal band from the 80s), whereas "warrantless" is usually taken to mean "unjustified", which of course means to have a messy right border.
And if you read the 10th amendment at face value, nowhere is there authorization for quite literally the majority of the federal government. The very existence and authority of most federal agencies relies on the **spirit** of the Constitution's enumerated powers, not the actual hard letter.
Therefore, they should be required to abide by the **spirit** of the 4th amendment.
If someone's general location is not protected by the 4th amendment, lets see a web site that shows the "general location" of all federal employees. Seems only fair.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution. But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?"
Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis. An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims. This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal, but it probably won't be.
Same as the old boss. I'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy. No matter what the government may say, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place?
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
1) if the feds require the data retention, then a warrant is necessary to access the customer's information.
2a) if the feds do not require data retention, then a warrant is required to access the carrier's information.
2b) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information, find a carrier that doesn't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.
It's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical, summary information that cannot be traced back to a customer pretty much indefinitely, well, for years anyways. It's useful for planning and the like.
It's reasonable for businesses to keep billing data until the billing is finalized. This will normally be 60-90 days after the bill is paid unless they are subject to having the billing opened up at a later date and need the records to protect their interests.
Location data needs to be kept only for a few days until it is stripped of personal information UNLESS it is needed for billing, for example, off-network roaming, reconciling a bill with a 3rd party carrier, etc.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations
sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness
of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wait I have seen what Google Maps does with cell phone triangulation and it has never been more than a couple of meters off. Then GPS kicks in. That is way to close.
The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.
Is very simple, my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government's business. You want to know, get a warrant. None of this loop-hole business. Makes me happy to not own a cell phone, since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis.
Bearded Dragon
The Constitution WAS a document of enumerated powers for the Feds, but that has been ignored with the Commerce Clause rulings and ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments, what does anyone expect?
Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.
No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.
Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.
Corporatism != Free Market
Then vote republican...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
you can bet they are violating the intent. As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do. The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about. It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.
Remember, those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder... From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights": "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anonymous Troll writes:
"I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. "
FTFA:
"Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. "
Gasp! Shock! Amazement!
People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!
... and I never will.
Reason: I have quite a bit of training in radio and satellite communications, radio frequency radiation and the like.
I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.
As a result, I have an aversion to carrying a transmitter on my person.
And, it looks like, as an added bonus, "someones" will not be able to track me (or attempt to do so) by my non-existent cell phone.
Note: In an emergency, there are probably 20 people in a four square block area with cell phones (if not more).
In an urban environment, 500m may not be enough to pinpoint a location. In a rural environment (or some suburban environments), however, it may well be enough to give away your location. The larger the lot and less densely developed/populated the area, the more likely 500m will make a difference.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Unlike some other states, we have strong protections for privacy in our state, and you can't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant, or enable that On*Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.
Thus, anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park, would still need a warrant.
Anyone.
Including the feds.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Same as the old boss!
I guess "The Who" had it right.
So, what you propose is to create not only a new constitution every fifty years, but also to maintain a meta-constitution to restrict even the creation of the fifty-year constitution?
Although I do like the "get everyone to agree on the terms by which they will consent to be governed every generation." idea.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
... Or don't allow them to track you. In this case use a pay as you go phone or steal someone else's. And take the battery out when not in use.
I think it's more the lack of awareness that people seem to be pretty upset about this regardless of whether it's Bush or Obama.
It looks like the majority of comments here are about how this is a violation of fundamental rights.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
Word.
Bush 2.0? Ok, maybe, but only because the other proposed "feature set" wasn't selected. We were going to have a 4 year circus one way or the other.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people. The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. But the one great shocking occasion... never comes. That's the difficulty." - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45
> these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts
These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...
You're not OK with it? Then why is the only thing you have to say about this "Fuck you, partisan shithead" ? Again, silent to the problem, but first one to point at the person pointing at the problem...yes, you are the problem you hypocritical hack.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Let's say they were able to exclude your residence; maybe the tower(s) nearest thereto.
Wouldn't your location be "in public" and thus you would have no reasonable expectation of privacy?
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
Obama never backtracked from where Bush left off. He's past Bush already. But thanks for being honest-ish..
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
At this point, given how little I use my cell phone, anyway, I am strongly considering making a little box out of mu-metal. I think (but have not run the numbers) that it would be more effective than simple copper at the given frequencies. Whenever I want to use the phone, I will take it out of the box. Seeing as how I have used no minutes or text messages this month (already a third over), there's an argument to be made for switching to a much cheaper service.
I might get a pager, in case work (or anyone else) needs to get ahold of me.
ie - if they want to do it, make it publicly available, on a nice, oh I don't know, google earth map.
First people on the plot, as a test to make sure it works, all politicians and federal employees - up to and including the president, and all FBI/CIA/NSA agents.
Oh.. that's a problem? Need their privacy to protect security? No shit? Really? So do WE!!!
Towers are denser in urban areas, so triangulation and intensity-based location is much more precise (and in Europe I guess even more).
Obvious way to prevent the looming surveillance distopy is to mandate carriers to never log location data by default, only when there is a search warrant.
Otherwise there will _always_ be a record where we were at any given point in time, as long as the cell phone is not off (which anyway is the usual thing done by criminals - in combination of changing numbers and devices at the same time). Imagine the misuse possibilities for that.
If the privacy provisions of the 4th Amendment don't apply to some records, then nobody should have any objections to allowing Verizon (or other operators) to sell this data on the open market. To anyone.
We went down this path at one time with telephone call records. The telcos claimed that these were their property and that making records of calls (source, destination, and time, not content) didn't constitute eavsdropping or compromise customers privacy. Law enforcement loved this. Until it bacame clear that the telcos were selling these records to (overseas) firms that did link analysis and other assorted data mining. Traffic analysis based upon this kind of data is valuable to marketers in that it can identify people with similar interests, who engage in similar activities or work for the same employers. When our intelligence agencies discovered that exposing a single CIA employee (for example) could reveal the identities of hundreds of others using such analysis, they shit bricks.
So, if law enforcement believes that location data isn't private, then they'll be OK with wireless operators handing it over to anyone. I'm sure there are a number of groups who would like to have a list of cellphones that apear from time to time in Langley, VA.
Have gnu, will travel.
"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, "
They also regularly record and retain things like credit card #'s. Should those be handed over without a warrant too?
This is an obvious violation of privacy. If a private citizen isn't entitled to look up this data, then the government's not entitled to do it without a warrant.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Can somebody tell me....and I really want to understand this... why law enforcement agencies have such a big problem with having to follow DUE PROCEDURE and getting a warrant? If they want the information that bad, and they really do have a reason to get it, then they should have absolutely, positively no problem GETTING A GODDAMN WARRANT.
Law enforcement: Stop trying to trample all over our Constitution just because you're too goddamn lazy to do your job.
I'm pretty sure they are just talking about cell phone tower data. For most carriers in the US anyway, that tower data is only stored when you make or receive a call.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't think this is 4th Amendment violation because your phone is telling the cell phone company where you are, and then the company is telling the government. If I told my friend Bob where I was and he told the government, should I be mad? Maybe at Bob, but I think I lost my privacy concern when I told him. I think more people should be upset at the cell phone carriers for keeping this information for so long.
Hey, he is way more open about disregarding the Constitution and civil liberties.
It was all just a misunderstanding. He was actually saying "Vote for chains" and none of us caught it. :)
The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties
The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control.
Obama (and you) are thinking of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution assigns powers to the government.
The Bill of Rights restricts those powers.
"We, the people" retain all rights not assigned to Congress by the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- 9th amendment
Of course it's been flipped to be interpreted as the government having all powers not restricted by the BoR.
Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.
QFT, he wants a nanny/police-state.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
No. This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.
Not to mention that the accuracy is on occasion pin-point - true, you don't know when a location is within a few meters of the actual location, but even a limited time series can demonstrate where someone was accurately, and how they were moving.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...that I underestimated (by a bunch) the speed at which "our" government has gone about dismantling The Constitution and The Bill of Rights since outlining the process in the "Patriot Act". While the Patriot Act was bad, and while I knew it was a sign of things to come, I really rather expected it to take a generation or two for people to get used to the ass-raping being given to their civil rights in the name of security. That this suggestion isn't being greeted, in every quarter, with torches and pitchforks is deeply troubling.
I've lost my phone twice and neither Sprint the first time nor AT&T the second time would give me any location information about it due to privacy concerns. I understand that they do not want the stalker being able to call them up and find out where someone is, but they don't have a problem believing that you are who you say you are when you drop the money on a new phone to replace the old one.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Your surety is mistaken. I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama. I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome. Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you,"
That is exactly correct. The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do. Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).
But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct. The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.
"but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."
The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote. That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.
Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution? If the latter, could you elaborate please? I am not following, but I am deeply interested.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
[sarcasm] Sure, Obama. Don't worry about the thousands of nutso, racist stalkers and cops that will be able to locate you 24x7, 3 years from now when you're still on the phone...
I have a proposal.
If a public servant uses illegally obtained information (ie. warrantless wiretap), all evidence derived from that is "poisoned." That is, during the trial, if any information can be linked with illegal surveillance, violation of the 5th amendment, etc., it is "poisoned fruit" and must be discarded.
If a case is declared a mistrial, everyone responsible for poisoning the evidence is given a warning.
On the third warning, the servant(s) are permanently released from their position(s), and cannot re-apply for 2 years.
Everyone wins - the guilty are more likely to be found and convicted (higher standard of evidence), the innocent are spared, and revolution is postponed (the constitution is obeyed).
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Say hello to the new boss... same as the old boss.
Just to be pedantic the 2nd amendment was written in the 1780s not the 1880s.
Let them monitor my phone's camera, microphone and USB port too.
Great care to explain where the outrage is in the mainstream media, the general public; the ACLU is doing its job but GP is right no one is screaming bloody murder.
This is a retroactive coverup to torpedo the cases in your court.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
What a bill of goods our last two presidents have been. One calls himself a conservative and grows the government like crazy and the next calls himself a liberal and continues the ridiculous war on liberty. I had hoped that at least with Obama that along with the usual democrat silliness we'd at least get rid of some of the crazy Bush policies against individual liberty but noooooo! He continues right along. More and more it looks like there's really only one party in Washington. The stuff about gay rights and abortion is just smoke screen issues used to divide the people so they can be bilked by the Money Party that runs both sides in DC.
If the feds get to track citizens, why can't the citizens track the feds? For instance.. how about a geo-location accurate to 1m on every federal employee available on a google maps website available to every US Citizen whenever they feel like checking it? I mean why not.. it's our government right? Don't we have a say in how our money is spent? Next, I'd like to track how they spend our money too!
There has never been great outcry in the mainstream media over any of this, regardless of who was president at the time.
Not from a technological standpoint, though.
I don't carry my cellphone all the time, or even most of the time. Half the time I want to have it around, I don't, because I'm not in the habit of carrying it with me. So they pull the records, and see that my phone was somewhere in an area that happens to contain my house, for days at a time -- was I sick, was I working from home, did I leave my phone behind while on vacation, or was I just being me?
What about little johnny -- based on his demographics, his phone should be glued to his thumbs, but had it taken away by his parents or was grounded for a couple weeks for bad grades? Is the location data accurate enough to say he was or was not somewhere?
Once they start using that data to convict people, then they're saying it's accurate enough. Which means that leaving your phone somewhere else helps (but only helps) establish an alibi.
And "healthcare reform" isn't the same shenanigans?
TARP funds aren't the same shenanigans?
We don't want to let them know where we are any time they desire, but we should let them have control of 1/6th of our economy?
People, control is control. If they have a noose around a leg, they can get one around an arm. And in all cases, the goal is to get the noose around your neck. Your "protector" is and always will be your "master".
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
This is old news, they had done this for many years before 9-11-2001.
They need a warrant?
Now that IS news to a lot of "convicted felons" who were caught using this data without a warrant.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
just turning it off?
Bush 2.0
I've always preferred "2 Bush 2 Furious" myself.
Stop pushing for ways to destroy America...
Not really.
It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...
But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America. Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We've grown into this "NEW America"... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.
I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet, but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.
We're fucking doomed.
IF this were Bushing wanting something similar... as you say... He would have gotten it as well, despite how much the bloody murder the left screamed.
First, learn about k-Anonymity epic.org/privacy/reidentification/Sweeney_Article.pdf to get an introduction to why one-way hashes DO NOT ANONYMIZE DATA.
Then go learn about l-Diversity http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~cs656/reading/ldiversity.pdf to learn the right way to anonymize data.
duh
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
"Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest," and thus the cell-site records of Federal agents should be available upon request. Start filing your FOIA papers right away.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama. But, at the same time, this is wrong, just Obama's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong, and the fact that Obama didn't pursue Bush's other illegal actions while in office was wrong. Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this doesn't make it right. Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong. But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong? And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the "left" and "right" in this country.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
I notice you still have not offered any criticism either. Just had to take the red meat bait, didn't you? Limbaugh has you conditioned perfectly.
Snap out of it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.
Kid's aren't learning anything in civics classes because they can't read. Or tey cant rite. tight! ROFLMAOMGTTYL8R
Feds push for amending the Fourth Amendment!
More on 11.
These comments should be directed at the White House. Venting it here doesn't help anything. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact I just finished writing them to complain and you should too.
> Still glad you voted for Obama, fucknuts?
I know the black people are glad they voted for him. They pretty much ALL voted for him. Every time I look at a black person, I say to myself, "Thanks alot for helping fuck up this country, ape."
Same as the old boss...
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Criticism was the center of my statements. Wasn't I inferring Bush was guilty of the same thing Obama is doing? Should I draw a picture? I guess you have me pegged so well that you don't even have to read what I write; you just invoke the words ...LIMBAUGH... and your argument is already won in that brain your sitting on. The fact remains that your only criticism has been for me, still.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
There were detractors during the Bush administration on the right. Was I one? Not at first, but after 9/11 shock wore off and I realized we were trading our freedom for security, I snapped out of it. People on the left would riot in the street if Bush were doing this. You know it. Your 'left' is more honest than 'right' is BS; you know it.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
In a nutshell what I think this quote shows is that Obama understands the constitution and it's restrictions on government (even if always looking for a way around it). The 'what the government must do on your behalf' part shows that, to me, Obama does not agree with the restrictions placed on government.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Sounds like the 'Patriot Act' is due to be renewed. Or parts of it.. I guess they are gonna cram it into the "jobs" bill along with a lot of other payoffs. If you don't like this invation of our privacy, and you blamed Bush for the patriot act, etc, this is your chance to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office or your local senator. We expected change, not pushing the same-ol'-same-ol'. KILL THE PATRIOT ACT NOW! We CAN do this.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
All you Obama fanboys stand up and be counted! This is your hope and change. This is your "new tone". Yes, You Did elect this POS.
... that warrantless means that anyone can do it. Think insurance companies, you own company, you "potential" future employer... Your competitor, your girlfriend ex-lover... etc...
Get a yagi antenna hooked up to a laptop, point it at el presidante's car or your targets car, decrypt the cellphone signal and bam you've got their data.
Pay whoever $100 to get the data for where that cellphone has been and now you know where they live.
Dump the address into any one number of "find people" databases now I know who you are, what your name is, what your income is, how many kids you have...
I setup outside of the house, get your family's cellphone IEMI's, then look at what times people go to school, come home, etc. I can then say "nobody's home between 4 and 5 PM....". So that's when we break in to plant the bomb or steal you blind.
If the target happens to be a cop, judge, lawyer, etc who has no understanding of what privacy is and the prank happens to be leaving all this data on a laptop in the kitchen with their name on it....
I think you're reading way, way, too much into his statement.
I read it simply that he's saying the government should do more for the people.
I do not read that as "government knows best" or "government should spy on you more".
I do disagree with this push, however. Personally, I suspect he has bought in, to an extent, to the previous administration's paranoia. And there are certain things in a big goverment that have consistency beyond administrations.
expandfairuse.org
we aren't exactly allowed to have any weapons that would be effective at fighting the US military
Individuals might not be allowed to have such weapons, but state National Guards are. You still have the problem of citizen balance against state power, but at least that's one potential check against federal power.
That and the geographic distribution of actually national forces...
Tweet, tweet.
YEAH LIKE MCCUNT wouldve been BETTER :d
I modded you down because you assume Obama supporters support this too. I don't see ANYONE here defending this. Pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass.
Bush's fault...somehow.
FTA: "The Obama administration is not alone in making this argument. U.S. District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee in New York, wrote in a 2009 opinion that a defendant in a drug trafficking case, Jose Navas, "did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone" location. That's because Navas only used the cell phone "on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York" and "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off.""
Er, right. So if I want to keep my location private I have to turn off my phone. Any option for keeping my location private and still receiving calls Mr Government Man?
Such a change would also cripple emergency response services, however. Getting an emergency approval to enable to geo-location features might take more time than available in an emergency. Privacy is a mixed bag.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
People seem to be missing the point. It's about location tracking of cell phones. The first time someone is arrested for a murder and the government says we have these gps records, for your cell phone, showing you were at this location during the time of the murder, will be hilarious. I'd love for that to happen. My defense attorney would as the prosecutor to please provide the evidence that it was indeed the accused who was in possession of the cell phone during the murder. It's political wrangling.
When you learn a language you also learn the preferred way that speakers of that language refer to themselves. It's really not a difficult concept.
You don't get to redefine words they already use IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. You don't get to call a spade a table, at least not without everyone looking at you weird, why do you think that would be suddenly acceptable when it relates to their country affiliation ?
It's not elitism at all if you think about it. Slang aside, when I'm referring to your people in your language, I had better not be inventing a new term for it that I think they should use.
He's not American but he learned English. At some point during that process, he learned that a table is called a table and a chair a chair, and yes, that the people living in the US call themeselves Americans.
Therefore, calling them "USians" instead is certainly an intentional forceful attempt to redefine a nation's own language by non-native speakers from certain non-English speaking countries. The frequency with which it appears indicates an agenda, and that is why it got the response it did.
One question for all.
Do you really think that Obama, Bush, and others rules the country?
They just actors, politics are same, because they just actors for Americans to think that they have some power, and will to choose future.
Don't be stupid, they not making any decisions.
We could always try to create a continental iden-type network, but this is just magical thinking for sure.
The requested fragment "#main-articles" doesn't exist, so don't go lookin' for it.