Obama Pushing for Federal Cell Phone Tracking

[GWV5903]

Welcome to George Bush's third term. It seems Obama has warmed up quite nicely to the neocon policies of the previous administration.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

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.

Feds push for tracking cell phones | Politics and Law - CNET News

I some how doubt the signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would have agreed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don't care who wants this, it's crap, a total violation of individual privacy, keep pushing this crap and DC will change in a hurry!!!!

 

[Dr Gregg]

I don't see what difference it makes at this point. Technology has the capability of tracking every keystroke we make that goes out over the Internet, which is much more dangerous territory. They can listen to my phone conversations whenever they desire and I can guarantee they'll be bored to tears.

And yet when it was Bush doing it you were all up in arms and screaming bloody murder. Go figure.

No, I wasn't. Stop lumping everyone who opposes your political ideology into one box.

Yup, and thinking everybody is a blind ideologue, partisan hack.

 

[MaggieMae]

For me taking some of our freedoms let the terrorists win without a fight. The Patriot Act had and has some serious problems with the Constitution. The irony is, a terrorist or labeled terrorist will have to challenge it in court for us to get our rights back.

News flash: The type of terrorists we're dealing with couldn't care less about our Constitutional rights. Islamic fundamentalists don't hate us because of our freedom; they hate us because of our decadent lifestyle and perceived arrogant imperialism.

Good. But personally I could care less about what those type of terrorists could care less about. I'M very concerned about MY constitutional rights, and I'M personally far less afraid of "terrorists" then I am of loosing those constitutional rights.

It makes me wonder what the Hell is the point of fighting to protect our "freedoms" and our "way of life" if those "freedoms" are the very thing that we're loosing in the process of fighting. Serious question. How far are we going to slip into fascism while rationalizing it by saying "atleast we're not as bad as those arab countries"? Since when did Islamo-fascism become the standard by which we measured how "free" we are? Just some thoughts.

Frankly, I don't see what "freedoms" anyone has "lost" at all. You are "FREE" to come here and elsewhere on the Internet and say just about anything you want. You are "FREE" to come and go whenever and wherever you want except of course where there are signs prohibiting your entrance (usually with good reason). You are "FREE" to watch, listen, or read whatever media you want. You are "FREE" to protest, you are "FREE" to remain a civilian and not serve the country. You are "FREE" to get drunk and make an ass of yourself while livin it up, and only lose your drunken freedom if you commit a crime at the same time.

What "FREEDOMS" have you lost?

 

[rightwinger]

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery

Seems like good police work. I have no problem with it

After the fact investigation with court orders to make the search. The police should have been given only access to the results of the search, not all the calls made at that time. Still a bit of a problem with no specified suspect(s).

Obviously soft on crime

You broadcast your position it is public information

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh we will not ban cell phones even if it is shown they cause brain tumors in humans.

Another topic with a lot of questions.
The first cell phones that ran up to 6 watts of power were NOT safe. They ran at frequencies that cause more molecular heating, tissues, than one would believe, around 900Mhz. The same frequencies used by the early Microwave ovens that deep cooked a turkey in no time.
The frequencies used in cell phones today are higher for the most part than 900Mhz but the power levels are very low.

The intensity per watt/cm (cubed) that cell phones used today produce, even at the at the short distance, proximity, is not enough, imho, to cause any, if at all, molecular heating of any tissue, including (brain cells).

There are still many like those Econuts, that insist cell phones are dangerous to our health. If that's the case, shut down every Radio/TV and all devices that emit RF,(radio frequency) energy period. If that occured, I'd give them 20 minutes, they'd be out campaigning some other nonsense.

I am just stating that even if we did get proof positive that they say caused a 50% increased risk of brain tumoprs most of us would continue to use them.
The mobile digital monkey is on most of our backs.

 

[blu]

if bush was doing this, 100% of the republicans would be for it and fox would be running round the clock stories on how it will protect us from getting daily 9/11 attacks.

 

[elvis]

if bush was doing this, 100% of the republicans would be for it and fox would be running round the clock stories on how it will protect us from getting daily 9/11 attacks.

I was against Bush doing it and I'm against Obama doing it.

 

[blu]

if bush was doing this, 100% of the republicans would be for it and fox would be running round the clock stories on how it will protect us from getting daily 9/11 attacks.

I was against Bush doing it and I'm against Obama doing it.

that makes you a conservative then, drop the R. I am defintely against this, I am not against every line of the patriot act though, some of it (especially relating to how a person gets a communication warrant instead of individual devices) makes sense and needs some updates due to new technology.

 

[KissMy]

Welcome to George Bush's third term. It seems Obama has warmed up quite nicely to the neocon policies of the previous administration.

I some how doubt the signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would have agreed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This fits in nicely with the Obamacrats Marxist / Communist / Socialist agenda. Before all you nitwits blather on about how Republicans were ok with it when Bush was in office. We now have a Tea Party made up of largely ex-repubs, independents, & Conservatives. Most of the Liberal Dumocraps are to stupid to join the Tea Party & fight to reclaim our Constitutional rights.

All of you Lib-o-crats who chime in about how your rights have been taken away are full of crap. Unlike Tea Party voters, you stupid ass libtard-o-crats will be right back in the voting booth giving away the few rights we have left come next election.

 

[Gatekeeper]

no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Another 'key phrase', Buzz word, from Washington D.C., I guess again they know whats best for the rest of us, does that also include THEM?

IE: TRANSPARENCY.........somehow I doubt it.

They know what's BEST FOR THEM not US

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It will be interesting to see how the court splits on this .

 

[Dr Gregg]

Welcome to George Bush's third term. It seems Obama has warmed up quite nicely to the neocon policies of the previous administration.

I some how doubt the signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would have agreed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This fits in nicely with the Obamacrats Marxist / Communist / Socialist agenda. Before all you nitwits blather on about how Republicans were ok with it when Bush was in office. We now have a Tea Party made up of largely ex-repubs, independents, & Conservatives. Most of the Liberal Dumocraps are to stupid to join the Tea Party & fight to reclaim our Constitutional rights.

All of you Lib-o-crats who chime in about how your rights have been taken away are full of crap. Unlike Tea Party voters, you stupid ass libtard-o-crats will be right back in the voting booth giving away the few rights we have left come next election.

Who in their right mind would think this is a rational, well reasoned argument? Or anything other than some stupid partisan drivel?

 

[Polk]

How does this compare to the standards used for landlines?