ElNono, you keep proving my point.
Show me where I'm wrong, or let it go. You look so damn foolish.
When you sign your contract you become a slave and have sold your Cons utional rights for a fee. Preferably to the multinational to which Cobra Commander has sworn his allegiance.
Or not even a fee. You should be glad that you exist and that you exist to further glorify your fellow citizens Wal-Mart, General Electric, DuPont, etc...
That's not what I'm implying. The last time I read a cell phone contract, it covered how they can share with third parties, including law enforcement. I'm not saying they are all that way, in fact, I think newer ones no longer have such wording. My point was that such wording has existed, and still can. What I read of the opinion, it had to do with warrants and warrant requests. Not with voluntarily turning over information without a warrant.
I asked ElNono if I missed something in the ruling. I asked if the ruling prohibited voluntarily sharing information.
Crickets....
I took about 5 minutes searching for an on-line contract. Only found an AT&T contract, anf it didn't have a similar phrase, but it did say:
Anyone like that one?You authorize AT&T or a third party working on AT&T's behalf to listen to, and transcribe all or part of a voicemail message and to convert such voicemail message into text/email.
You're still talking out of you ass. So let me educate you:
What you failed to read is that they cannot share personally identifiable information with 3rd parties, by law. In the case of law enforcement, that personally identifiable information has historically been obtainable only with a court warrant (for example, pen registers or trap and trace devices).
Once communications in general were expanded and not only limited to phone lines, statutes were updated to reflect the same privacy protection. That's when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed, and as part of it, the Stored Communications Act was also passed to handle the matter at hand in this case. The SCA actually allows sharing information merely through a subpoena in certain cases, and under a court warrant in other cases.
This case is about wether the government can simply obtain personally identifiable information merely through the subpoena recourse, instead of needing a full blown warrant.
The government wants subpoena, the judge says they need a full blown warrant.
So, it should be obvious by now to whoever is reading this, that the terms of the cell phone contract have absolutely nothing to do with what this case is about.
Now, I fully expect a tantrum, insults, or a complete deflection of the topic from you. You're just not man enough to accept you were simply wrong and that you jumped to conclusions without even reading what this was about.
But that's OK, because everyone else here knows better.
I took considerable time putting together this post to basically do your homework for you. So this is my last post in this thread.
Devil's advocate, now that wc's take has been thoroughly demolished...a little teaser for ElNono.
What about all the dummies who take it for granted that they're supposed to limit themselves contractually vis-a-vis their privacy?
What's to stop them or the counterparties from making the deals, in principle?
The advice of a tinfoil-hat-wearing friend?
Really, there's nothing preventing dummies for handing out the keys to the kingdom if they so choose.
That said, your standard personal communication contract would normally need to be amended to add such a provision. Besides the fact that there's have been a historical expectation of privacy on those communications, there's nothing to gain from the service provider to grant your wish. I would even argue that were they not compelled by law to do so for free, they would be happy to charge you an administrative fee for forwarding your most intimate secrets to the powers that be.
I asked you to show me where it says that. You still haven't.
True. I do not disagree with that.
My statement had nothing to do with that particular court case except to ask you if it stated that a cell phone company was forbidden to supply such information without a warrant. I was at all times refering to the tracking, as the start of the OP stated, and the upcoming court case.
And the new Oct 2009 revision passed by the demonrats has removed the judicial warrant requirement again, however, that's not my argument. Your posting was about tracking. I am talking about tracking. Not emails, intercepts, etc.
I was speaking outside that particular case.
I still don't see it. Where do any of these laws forbid law enforcement to ask the cell phone provider for tracking information, and what forbids the carrier from supplying it, as long as the contract had words of 3rd party sharing?
A quote of the section and link would have been nice.
I'm still completely on topic to what my original response was about. It's you that's having the tantrums. I'm here laughing my ass off over you lack of understanding what I have been saying.
Remember, I am not talking about actions that demand information. Just requests.
This is what I was talking about, and it is in that first wiki link you supplied:
Yep, looks like I'm wrong. They can share the information without you signing the waver.Government may track cell phone, in real time, without search warrant, under Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), by analyzing information as to antennae being contacted by cell phones, so long as tracking does not involve cell phone being used in private place where visual surveillance would not be available.
Read my last post, and consider if I am demolished or not.
You agree with ElNono about halfway, admit your mistake at the end (very unusual for you, but commendable) and continue to deflect the issue to one that you have raised yourself, but have not really addressed yet.
You seem a little bit scattered to me, WC. Why don't you quit picking on ElNono, and provide some support for your own hobby horse?
You know, do your own homework for a change, rather than demand others do it for you indirectly, via refutation.
Funny.
Sad thing is, most people wouldn't challenge the charge.
dumb s shoulda used a burner
Indeed. Stupidity has no bounds. As seen in portions of this thread.
Oh well, I wanted to raise awareness about the eroding of our privacy rights, but unfortunately it was not meant to be. Maybe next time.
yo, what did i tell you about using your cell phone???
I am not actually conceding to the bit about the contracts. However, cell providers probably have changed their contracts since such things started being questioned.
From the start, and nobody asked for clarification, I was referring to the topic of the first thread... Using the tracking ability of cell phones. This does not have the same fourth amendment protection.
Scattered? I am always scattered. I often go off in tangents myself. However, I will happily have fun with people for a while when they jump to conclusions that I never meant, just because their own bigotry, bias, or prejudice makes them think the worse of me.
It's noticeable. Not everyone will follow you where you go, and not just because they are dumb or biased.
Face it, carnal, you don't have very good bs.
Cheeky, then.
BTW, other things make them think the worse of you too.
Your instant resort to name-calling, over-the-top hostility and vulgar meanness to posters who disagree in any way with whatever you happen to think, and the aforementioned weak bs, have been evident for quite some time.
It isn't pretty.
NJ high court unanimously requires warrants for cell phone tracking: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opi...omasWEarls.pdf
Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Is Upheld
In a significant victory for law enforcement, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said that government authorities could extract historical location data directly from telecommunications carriers without a search warrant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/te...d.html?hp&_r=0
ROOT MF'ers !!!!!
NOW !!!!!!
"location data was “clearly a business record” and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment."
WTF? where my cellphone is a record of where my person is.
"federal appeals court went on to agree with the government’s contention that consumers knowingly give up their location information to the telecommunications carrier every time they make a call or send a text message on their cellphones."
so if I want a cellphone
1) I must sign away my right to join a class action against and MUST use corporate-biased arbitration against an army of corporate lawyers.
2) I agree to "give up" my location
3) pay tons of money for ty, slow service
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-31-2013 at 06:15 AM.
Warrant requirement in MA:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...NJO/story.htmlThe state’s highest court ruled today that law enforcement must generally obtain a search warrant before acquiring a criminal suspect’s cell-phone data in order to track his movements.
The Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in a case with echoes of the controversy over the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, said a warrant is required under the Massachusetts cons ution protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
