Court: No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

[Contumacious]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Contumacious]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That means communication with third parties of any sort is not protected, except granted by statute.

I disagree.

 

[dilloduck]

How about if I call my lawyer or my doctor ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are either of those protected by statute? Better check. I would think your lawyer is protected but your doctor may be another issue.

 

[Contumacious]

That means communication with third parties of any sort is not protected, except granted by statute.

I disagree.

Comrade Starkiev, I imagine you are celebrating the continuing trend toward greater and greater government control .

You must feel like you are back in the old Soviet Union.

.

 

[bendog]

Well, basically, the Court idenfied the issue. Nearly every American chooses to have a cell phone, with the knowledge that the phone companies TRACK OUR USE.

(A technical aside, phone companies do it because they can build fewer towers by simply tracking us and switching which tower controls which area, i.e. when on area gets too busy, another, less used, tower is tasked with taking some of the calls. If a phone company offered cell phones without the tracking, they'd have Higer Costs, and they'd charge us more)

Since we accept this intrusion into our lives because we don't want to pay as much, we voluntarily surrender our "expectation of privacy." Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's simply a fact. If you want privacy, cancel your cell contract.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That means communication with third parties of any sort is not protected, except granted by statute.

I disagree.

Comrade Starkiev, I imagine you are celebrating the continuing trend toward greater and greater government control .

You must feel like you are back in the old Soviet Union.

Assault Leader Contumkiev continues to practice the act of misrecognition.

Misrecognition is the term used to describe this phenomenon of describing a practice using one set of terms, but acting in accordance with another set. Yet, the ritualized action only works on the precondition of misrecognition; otherwise it fails.
Misrecognition

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Well, basically, the Court idenfied the issue. Nearly every American chooses to have a cell phone, with the knowledge that the phone companies TRACK OUR USE.

(A technical aside, phone companies do it because they can build fewer towers by simply tracking us and switching which tower controls which area, i.e. when on area gets too busy, another, less used, tower is tasked with taking some of the calls. If a phone company offered cell phones without the tracking, they'd have Higer Costs, and they'd charge us more)

Since we accept this intrusion into our lives because we don't want to pay as much, we voluntarily surrender our "expectation of privacy." Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's simply a fact. If you want privacy, cancel your cell contract.

Since rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it, eh?

 

[Toronado3800]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

A slippery slope.

I agree this is a problem. I fear the parties of Bush and Obama are part of it. This country changed after 9-11 & not for the best.

 

[bendog]

Well, basically, the Court idenfied the issue. Nearly every American chooses to have a cell phone, with the knowledge that the phone companies TRACK OUR USE.

(A technical aside, phone companies do it because they can build fewer towers by simply tracking us and switching which tower controls which area, i.e. when on area gets too busy, another, less used, tower is tasked with taking some of the calls. If a phone company offered cell phones without the tracking, they'd have Higer Costs, and they'd charge us more)

Since we accept this intrusion into our lives because we don't want to pay as much, we voluntarily surrender our "expectation of privacy." Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's simply a fact. If you want privacy, cancel your cell contract.

Since rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it, eh?

Illogical comparison, and you ignore your own actions in taking part in surrendering our expectations of privacy. However, I think there's some comparison to Brave New World, with consumerism, "class indoctrination," and chemical enhancement of happiness.

 

[g5000]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

The appeals court is simply abiding by precedent. You wouldn't want them making it up as they go, would you?

A pen register records the numbers called from a phone line. It does not record the conversations. All this "metadata" you have been hearing about is like placing a pen register on every phone in America. Then the NSA sees what phones are talking to each other. Those phones which call suspected terrorists' phone numbers then pop up on the NSA/FBI's radar for further examination.

In order to actually listen to your phone conversations, the Supreme Court determined in Katz v. United States that the cops have to get a warrant.

To place a pen register on your phone, the cops do NOT have to get a warrant, according to the Supreme Court's Smith v. Maryland decision.

In 1986, Congress passed the Electronics Privacy Communication Act which requires law enforcement to get an ex parte order from a judge to place a pen register on a phone.


With the advent of the internet, law enforcement wanted to be able to do with people's internet communications what they were doing with phone pen registers. This was added to a long wish list. When 9/11 happened, law enforcement (not letting a good crisis go to waste) added all their wish list items into what became the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

If you read Section 216 of the Patriot Act, you find "pen registers" are extended to electronic communication, such as the internet.


As I said, this was part of a long list of expanded powers desired by law enforcment. It is important to understand they wanted these extra powers long before 9/11.

The significance of that is that these tools are not just intended for the War on Terra™. These are intended for all future law enforcement activity.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Well, basically, the Court idenfied the issue. Nearly every American chooses to have a cell phone, with the knowledge that the phone companies TRACK OUR USE.

(A technical aside, phone companies do it because they can build fewer towers by simply tracking us and switching which tower controls which area, i.e. when on area gets too busy, another, less used, tower is tasked with taking some of the calls. If a phone company offered cell phones without the tracking, they'd have Higer Costs, and they'd charge us more)

Since we accept this intrusion into our lives because we don't want to pay as much, we voluntarily surrender our "expectation of privacy." Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's simply a fact. If you want privacy, cancel your cell contract.

Since rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it, eh?

Illogical comparison, and you ignore your own actions in taking part in surrendering our expectations of privacy. However, I think there's some comparison to Brave New World, with consumerism, "class indoctrination," and chemical enhancement of happiness.

Nonsense. People enter into cellphone contracts with a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one reads the contract. You're standing on legalistic bullshit.

A company stating something does not make it so. By reading my reply you agree to send me 10% if your income for the next ten years. I'll expect my first check on August 1, 2013.

Oh, and your argument does remind me of those who think that a woman making herself attractive is inviting rape.

 

[bendog]

Exactly. if the cops think you brought up some product from Meh-hee-coe, they can track your past movements from what towers your cell phone automatically "pinged."

 

[bendog]

Since rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it, eh?

Illogical comparison, and you ignore your own actions in taking part in surrendering our expectations of privacy. However, I think there's some comparison to Brave New World, with consumerism, "class indoctrination," and chemical enhancement of happiness.

Nonsense. People enter into cellphone contracts with a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one reads the contract. You're standing on legalistic bullshit.

A company stating something does not make it so. By reading my reply you agree to send me 10% if your income for the next ten years. I'll expect my first check on August 1, 2013.

Oh, and your argument does remind me of those who think that a woman making herself attractive is inviting rape.

If you entered into a cellphone contract with any expectation of privacy you are stupd, self-deluded or crazy. you surrendered your expectation of privacy the second you signed, and you did so for the sake of convenience and low cost. If you wish the govt to not be able to track you, you simply don't use a cell, or use a throw away at the very least.

 

[Contumacious]

How about if I call my lawyer or my doctor ?

Meet “The People’s Court”


By Paul Huebl

Crime File News

July 31, 2013

It is a reminder of terrible time in history when total judicial tyranny was practiced under National Socialism 1933-1945. Murder under color of law was the mission of the Chief Justice, Roland Frisler.

Frisler was a lawyer and was later appointed by Adolph Hitler as the People’s Court President. It has been said that he Frisler constantly proving himself as a super Nazi to counter those who questioned his changing loyalties. Frisler was ruthless and merciless as he sent over 5,000 German men, women and teenagers to the guillotine or gallows for even the most minor acts of resistance. Evidence presented before the court was often simple hearsay. The People’s Court court acquitted only a scant few before it. Frisler was also one of Hitler’s Judges that made sure everything done by the Nazi government was legal. He was also chosen as one of 15 high ranking Nazis that promulgated the Holocaust at the Wansee Conference during a two-hour luncheon."

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, basically, the Court idenfied the issue. Nearly every American chooses to have a cell phone, with the knowledge that the phone companies TRACK OUR USE.

(A technical aside, phone companies do it because they can build fewer towers by simply tracking us and switching which tower controls which area, i.e. when on area gets too busy, another, less used, tower is tasked with taking some of the calls. If a phone company offered cell phones without the tracking, they'd have Higer Costs, and they'd charge us more)

Since we accept this intrusion into our lives because we don't want to pay as much, we voluntarily surrender our "expectation of privacy." Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's simply a fact. If you want privacy, cancel your cell contract.

Since rape is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it, eh?

A false derivative comparison. Step off.

However, the ruling is wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about if I call my lawyer or my doctor ?

Meet “The People’s Court”


By Paul Huebl

Crime File News

July 31, 2013

It is a reminder of terrible time in history when total judicial tyranny was practiced under National Socialism 1933-1945. Murder under color of law was the mission of the Chief Justice, Roland Frisler.

Frisler was a lawyer and was later appointed by Adolph Hitler as the People’s Court President. It has been said that he Frisler constantly proving himself as a super Nazi to counter those who questioned his changing loyalties. Frisler was ruthless and merciless as he sent over 5,000 German men, women and teenagers to the guillotine or gallows for even the most minor acts of resistance. Evidence presented before the court was often simple hearsay. The People’s Court court acquitted only a scant few before it. Frisler was also one of Hitler’s Judges that made sure everything done by the Nazi government was legal. He was also chosen as one of 15 high ranking Nazis that promulgated the Holocaust at the Wansee Conference during a two-hour luncheon."

.

The above is exactly what Contumacious' and his crew desire if they come to power.

 

[bendog]

How about if I call my lawyer or my doctor ?

Meet “The People’s Court”


By Paul Huebl

Crime File News

July 31, 2013

It is a reminder of terrible time in history when total judicial tyranny was practiced under National Socialism 1933-1945. Murder under color of law was the mission of the Chief Justice, Roland Frisler.

Frisler was a lawyer and was later appointed by Adolph Hitler as the People’s Court President. It has been said that he Frisler constantly proving himself as a super Nazi to counter those who questioned his changing loyalties. Frisler was ruthless and merciless as he sent over 5,000 German men, women and teenagers to the guillotine or gallows for even the most minor acts of resistance. Evidence presented before the court was often simple hearsay. The People’s Court court acquitted only a scant few before it. Frisler was also one of Hitler’s Judges that made sure everything done by the Nazi government was legal. He was also chosen as one of 15 high ranking Nazis that promulgated the Holocaust at the Wansee Conference during a two-hour luncheon."

.

I realize you simply "must" put yourself into a tizzy.

However, again, to "listen to your words," the cops need a warrant.

But, YOU have no right to decide the phone company MUST sell you a contract in which it does not compile a list of towers your phone visited. I'm not aware of any such contract being offered. Rather, you have a right to VOLUNTARILY enter a contract, or NOT enter a contract, with a cell phone company that tracks your phone's movements, because that's the cheapest way for them to provide a service. The VAST MAJORITY of your FELLOW CITIZENS have decided they'd rather have cheap cell service, than the kind of privacy they traditionally have with a private land line. Therefore, despite your wish to be somehow
Special, you are not.

 

[Sunshine]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

That is correct. Just like your medical record belongs to the provider or hospital. You can have a copy of it, but it doesn't belong to you. Phone records have always been discoverable without a warrant. There is no difference just because you are using a cell phone.