Obama admin - "No reasonable expectation of privacy" rearding cellphones

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2009
40,565
5,360
1,830
"... 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"

What say ye you crazy leftists who complained that warrentless wiretaps were the essence of tyranny????
 
It makes sense to me. When you broadcast on your cell, your whereabouts are reported. If you are involed in a crime, it is best that you don't use your cell
 
Then why not get a warrant to do the tracking?


Funny how all the libs were screaming bloody murder when Bush was doing warrentless wiretapping of suspected terrorists calling overseas. Now that the Hussein wants to track citizens without a warrant, its all A-OK.
 
I have (or at least had) an expectation of privacy.

I guess I must not be reasonable.


Seriously though, this is not cool.
 
"... 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"

What say ye you crazy leftists who complained that warrentless wiretaps were the essence of tyranny????

Weren't these the same people that insisted Bush broke the law and should be tried for this?
 
Bush was listening to Sat phone in Pashtun. Obama is listening to everybody, 4th Amendment be damned.
 
It makes sense to me. When you broadcast on your cell, your whereabouts are reported. If you are involed in a crime, it is best that you don't use your cell

that's why you buy a no contract anonymous cell phone as a burner.

duh.

just don't be an idiot and buy it with a credit card.
 
"... 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"

What say ye you crazy leftists who complained that warrentless wiretaps were the essence of tyranny????

Weren't these the same people that insisted Bush broke the law and should be tried for this?

One wonders where all the people claimng Bush shredded the Constitution are.
 
"... 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"

What say ye you crazy leftists who complained that warrentless wiretaps were the essence of tyranny????


I imagine it's based on the earlier supreme court ruling that, while the contents of a conversation are private, the numbers dialed are not. Since the numbers dialed give you a location with landlines, I'd imagine they saw no difference in also accessing the companies' records recording the location of a mobile phone, since it's merely a matter of when three+ towers picked up the signal (on most phones).
 

Forum List

Back
Top