track cellphones ? you bet!

well, we've seen the Obama administration argue that you have no right NOT to be framed for a crime, and now you have no right to privacy if you carry a cell phone. nice.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
well, we've seen the Obama administration argue that you have no right NOT to be framed for a crime, and now you have no right to privacy if you carry a cell phone. nice.
Click to expand...

Does this mean some a*hole government employee is going to get to listen to me spit my non-existent game at all the women of San Francisco?
 
Personally, I never cared about all of the stuff the Bush admin did that was construed as "spying" or "invasion of privacy" (the Patriot Act stuff). Maybe it should have bothered me, but it doesn't; I don't really see the slippery slope, which I know will leave our libertarian friends here slack-jawed, but I don't see it.

However, I think if you check, you'll see that those on what would be considered the far left, and many who consider themselves liberals, are furious about this, and about other policies Obama is engaging in with regard to surveillance & privacy issues....
 
Onceler said:
Personally, I never cared about all of the stuff the Bush admin did that was construed as "spying" or "invasion of privacy" (the Patriot Act stuff). Maybe it should have bothered me, but it doesn't; I don't really see the slippery slope, which I know will leave our libertarian friends here slack-jawed, but I don't see it.

However, I think if you check, you'll see that those on what would be considered the far left, and many who consider themselves liberals, are furious about this, and about other policies Obama is engaging in with regard to surveillance & privacy issues....
Click to expand...

its cute how much time you spend trying to convince others you're not partisan
 
can I have a list of all the people who came unglued over the Patriot Act, their cell phone numbers and a print out of where they are at this moment?......because none of them seem to be here posting......
 
i'm not surprised by the incredible leaps of intellectual dishonesty shown by the apologists. At least nigel was showing some humor by the emoticon.
 
Yurt said:
its cute how much time you spend trying to convince others you're not partisan
Click to expand...

It's really a non-partisan issue, CBO guy. There are as many on the left about it who are up in arms as there are anywhere else.

And I said the same thing when Bush was Prez, Mr. CBO.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm not surprised by the incredible leaps of intellectual dishonesty shown by the apologists. At least nigel was showing some humor by the emoticon.
Click to expand...


Frankly, this does not surprise me in the least. I think it's bullshit, but it is the purview of the courts to sort this out. The DoJ will almost always argue on the side of the government in cases like this.

And Obama's record on this type of issue isn't very good at all. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act re-authorization and was criticized at the time by folks on the left for doing so. Why would he change his position now that it's his neck on the line if something goes wrong?
 
I can only think of two circumstances where this might be legitimate:

First, under the conditions where it is permissible -- with a warrant -- to tap a landline.

Second, retrospectively, in the event of a traffic accident, to determine if the driver's talking on a cellphone at the time may have been a contributing factor.

Anything further would be a gross invasion of privacy and should be resisted.

The upside of this is that the funds simply are not available to track every single conversation on every single cellphone; the resources required would be overwhelming and would never yield enough significant information to justify this. Besides, it would be an administrative nightmare, to carry this out, ensure the necessary confidentiality, monitor the staff, etc., etc.

What seems horrific in hypothesis is simply not feasible in reality.
 
Onceler said:
It's really a non-partisan issue, CBO guy. There are as many on the left about it who are up in arms as there are anywhere else.

And I said the same thing when Bush was Prez, Mr. CBO.
Click to expand...

its still cute how you spend so much time trying to convince people you're not partisan OCD dude....

mr. obsessive will be talking about CBO until he dies, in fact, his last words will be.......yurt...gasp...CBO....
 
Thorn said:
I can only think of two circumstances where this might be legitimate:

First, under the conditions where it is permissible -- with a warrant -- to tap a landline.

Second, retrospectively, in the event of a traffic accident, to determine if the driver's talking on a cellphone at the time may have been a contributing factor.

Anything further would be a gross invasion of privacy and should be resisted.

The upside of this is that the funds simply are not available to track every single conversation on every single cellphone; the resources required would be overwhelming and would never yield enough significant information to justify this. Besides, it would be an administrative nightmare, to carry this out, ensure the necessary confidentiality, monitor the staff, etc., etc.

What seems horrific in hypothesis is simply not feasible in reality.
Click to expand...


But they aren't tapping cell phones, listening to conversations or doing anything to determine if and when a person was on the phone. They're using records maintained by cell phone companies to identify where a person was at a particular time based on where that person's cell phone was located at that time.

If they were listening in on conversations you'd hear a whole hell of a lot more outrage about it, particularly if the DoJ took the position that you have no reasonable expectation to privacy with respect to your cell phone conversations.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But they aren't tapping cell phones, listening to conversations or doing anything to determine if and when a person was on the phone. They're using records maintained by cell phone companies to identify where a person was at a particular time based on where that person's cell phone was located at that time.

If they were listening in on conversations you'd hear a whole hell of a lot more outrage about it, particularly if the DoJ took the position that you have no reasonable expectation to privacy with respect to your cell phone conversations.
Click to expand...

Ah. Under those circumstances, then, a warrant should be obtained in all cases. I can't see any justification for doing this otherwise.
 
Yurt said:
its still cute how you spend so much time trying to convince people you're not partisan OCD dude....

mr. obsessive will be talking about CBO until he dies, in fact, his last words will be.......yurt...gasp...CBO....
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, your royal CBO-ness....

:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top