Police Push to Continue Warrantless Cell Tracking

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants!

Obtaining a search warrant when monitoring the whereabouts of someone "who may be attempting to victimize a child over the Internet will have a significant slowing effect on the processing of child exploitation leads," said Richard Littlehale of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. "If that is acceptable, so be it, but it is a downstream effect that must be considered."
Click to expand...
 
God dammit Steve, police still need at a minimum of a subpoena to get cell phone records/tracking which still require a higher authority of approval.

Your title infers there is no oversight on cell phone tracking and that is absolutely false and misleading.

Search Warrant (probable cause) compared to subpoena(reasonable suspicion), both are still approved by a higher authority with different standards.

And on another note, law enforcement does NOT throw a cast net out on cell phones numbers then see if they find something. What a waste of fucking time. Anybody who thinks LE does that is ignorant. They don't have time to fuck around with that.


So yes there is court oversight. God dammit this pisses me OFF!!!!!!!!!!
 
This is typical of the give an inch steal a mile mentality people have. You've got to love the way they frame it too, like it's an either / or scenario.
 
madcap magician said:
God dammit Steve, police still need at a minimum of a subpoena to get cell phone records/tracking which still require a higher authority of approval.

Your title infers there is no oversight on cell phone tracking and that is absolutely false and misleading.

Search Warrant (probable cause) compared to subpoena(reasonable suspicion), both are still approved by a higher authority with different standards.

And on another note, law enforcement does NOT throw a cast net out on cell phones numbers then see if they find something. What a waste of fucking time. Anybody who thinks LE does that is ignorant. They don't have time to fuck around with that.


So yes there is court oversight. God dammit this pisses me OFF!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I didn't get that impression from "his" title at all. By the way, he simply used the title of the linked article, so if you want to complain, you may consider directing it toward the source.

Anyway, I suspect you may be a little overly sensitive to this particular issue.
 
Inglix_the_Mad said:
This is typical of the give an inch steal a mile mentality people have. You've got to love the way they frame it too, like it's an either / or scenario.
Click to expand...

Exactly...
While I'd be OK for using it for that purpose ONLY, there's a ton of abuse introduced with it... Don't give up that inch or they'll ask for a foot next time.
 
Won't someone please think of the children!

We need real time tracking of all potential pedophiles (read: everyone) if we're ever going to stop people from victimizing our little snowflakes!

Newsflash: Every major piece of legislation that serves to "protect the children" really is just a way for law enforcement to gain access to currently off limits information for use in solving EVERY crime (not just kidnapping).

While the law may change with the intent to catch kidnappers and pedophiles (again, think of the children), it also applies to anyone breaking any law.

But you say, I'm not breaking any laws so what do I have to hide? Law enforcement is and always should be on a need to know basis, if they don't need to know where you are 24 hours a day they shouldn't be able to. We are free citizens and if we're not breaking the law, nobody needs to know where we are.
 
Mark_Warner said:
I didn't get that impression from "his" title at all. By the way, he simply used the title of the linked article, so if you want to complain, you may consider directing it toward the source.

Anyway, I suspect you may be a little overly sensitive to this particular issue.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time a particular theme has come up on the frontpage news. Not to mention it doesn't necessarily meet the threshold of hardware news IMO. Of course Steve adn HArdocp can post any topic they choose.

I'm all for protecting ones rights so bashers take a pill.

And yes I am overly sensitive about this issue when the ignorants will take that bullshit headline and interpret it to something it is not, i.e. "The police need no higher authority to track your cellphone".

However I will concede that is not his "title" per se.
 
madcap magician said:
God dammit Steve, police still need at a minimum of a subpoena to get cell phone records/tracking which still require a higher authority of approval.

Your title infers there is no oversight on cell phone tracking and that is absolutely false and misleading.

Search Warrant (probable cause) compared to subpoena(reasonable suspicion), both are still approved by a higher authority with different standards.

And on another note, law enforcement does NOT throw a cast net out on cell phones numbers then see if they find something. What a waste of fucking time. Anybody who thinks LE does that is ignorant. They don't have time to fuck around with that.


So yes there is court oversight. God dammit this pisses me OFF!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wow lay off the coffee man.
 
madcap magician said:
You mean to tell me you have no one over you that reviews your request for subpoenas?
Click to expand...

Not if I request it personally.

In a corporate environment, sure.

Regardless, there's no special "higher authority" needed for a subpoena, that's my point.
A judge at least has to sign off on a warrant. That's why this is a problem. When all the PD needs to track someone is their own approval, that's a problem. Whereas right now they need a warrant.
 
Hmmm weird my understanding is the state attorney or his delegate had to sign off on it. At least in Florida that's how it was/is.

Now i've heard in the federal system you need a higher approval(AUSA) for NSL's and grand jury subpoenas, admin subpoenas etc.
 
The phrasing of "We're just trying to protect kids, if you guys would rather not to do that by putting these silly restrictions on us then I'll still sleep OK at night" is amazing. That guy should run for office.
 
Remember if you are not trying to protect the kids, you must be trying to exploit them!
 
madcap magician said:
God dammit Steve, police still need at a minimum of a subpoena to get cell phone records/tracking which still require a higher authority of approval.

Your title infers there is no oversight on cell phone tracking and that is absolutely false and misleading.

Search Warrant (probable cause) compared to subpoena(reasonable suspicion), both are still approved by a higher authority with different standards.

And on another note, law enforcement does NOT throw a cast net out on cell phones numbers then see if they find something. What a waste of fucking time. Anybody who thinks LE does that is ignorant. They don't have time to fuck around with that.


So yes there is court oversight. God dammit this pisses me OFF!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're rambling about. The article specifically states that police wants warrantless search, but knows they cannot do that yet. They're pushing for it reasoning that search warrants take time to obtain and in some situations, by the time a warrant is given, the criminals are already gone.

Which is exactly what Steve said in his title - the police is PUSHING for warrantless cellphone searches. He did not infer that cellphone searches do not require warrants.
 
Azhar said:
I'm not sure what you're rambling about. The article specifically states that police wants warrantless search, but knows they cannot do that yet. They're pushing for it reasoning that search warrants take time to obtain and in some situations, by the time a warrant is given, the criminals are already gone.

Which is exactly what Steve said in his title - the police is PUSHING for warrantless cellphone searches. He did not infer that cellphone searches do not require warrants.
Click to expand...

Police Push to Continue Warantless Cell Tracking
Click to expand...

That word inplies that they are already doing it, no?
 
HOCP4ME said:
That word inplies that they are already doing it, no?
Click to expand...

From the article:

And a case currently being argued before a Connecticut federal judge shows that the FBI monitored the whereabouts of about 180 cell phones--without a warrant--while conducting surveillance of two men suspected of robbing local banks.
Click to expand...
 
We gotta stop the abuse of our children!*






*except when creating emotional based feel-good laws that do nothing, trying to attain political power, or suppressing the freedom of speech of those whom we don't agree with.
 
So... that thing that was enacted by the bush administration... I dunno.. maybe you've heard about the biggest invasion of privacy, pretty much ever - THE "PATRIOT" act? No. I won't wikipedia or google it for you.
 
RooK said:
So... that thing that was enacted by the bush administration... I dunno.. maybe you've heard about the biggest invasion of privacy, pretty much ever - THE "PATRIOT" act? No. I won't wikipedia or google it for you.
Click to expand...

In case nobody's told you yet, Bush isn't President anymore. Obama's got a chance to repeal the law, but..
 
RooK said:
So... that thing that was enacted by the bush administration... I dunno.. maybe you've heard about the biggest invasion of privacy, pretty much ever - THE "PATRIOT" act? No. I won't wikipedia or google it for you.
Click to expand...

So... that thing that was enacted by the Bush administration... I dunno... maybe CNN failed to tell you that Obama renewed and extended it back into law with his signature??
 
Azhar said:
In case nobody's told you yet, Bush isn't President anymore. Obama's got a chance to repeal the law, but..
Click to expand...

When in the history of the human race has government volunteered to give up power once it has it?
 
It is humorous to watch Americans fight over political parties. Both parties are exactly the same, the government survives on these partisan conflicts, because it keeps the general public distracted long enough to prevent people from focusing on the real issue .. the complete failure which is the government.
 
"We need to monitor your cell usage. You know, to prevent pedophilia."
"But I don't want anyone's cell usage monitored without a warrant to monitor them."
"SO YOU'RE PRO-CHILD MOLESTATION AND YOU WANT GRAPHIC SEXUAL DEPICTIONS OF CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET?!"
"What in the hell? That's not what I said at all!"
"Maybe we should be monitoring YOU, pervert."
 
TexUs said:
Not if I request it personally.

In a corporate environment, sure.

Regardless, there's no special "higher authority" needed for a subpoena, that's my point.
A judge at least has to sign off on a warrant. That's why this is a problem. When all the PD needs to track someone is their own approval, that's a problem. Whereas right now they need a warrant.
Click to expand...

You must be a troll or an idiot. You keep spouting complete nonsense in every thread you're in, you've only been here 4 months, and you have the knowledge of a 7th grader when it comes to American law and politics.

Look, here's what's required to get at least 1 form of subpoena. Looks like there's oversight to me!
There's forms to fill out and a whole process it needs to go through.
But go ahead and subpoena anyone you want without doing it prior work. Let's see how that goes, okay?
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00409.htm


All three of these forms of process require that, unless a delay of notice order is obtained, the government agency seeking protected records must notify the customer before it can obtain the records. The extent of the notice required is spelled out in the Act and requires (1) a description of the records sought, (2) a statement of the purpose of the inquiry, and (3) an explanation of the government process, a blank motion, and affidavit forms for filing in court when properly completed.
Click to expand...
 
:rolleyes:

#1- that's speaking of Fed entities. Not local popo.
#2- that's speaking of Fed entities. Not individuals.

Read what you post before posting next time, mmmk punkin'?
 
TexUs said:
:rolleyes:

#1- that's speaking of Fed entities. Not local popo.
#2- that's speaking of Fed entities. Not individuals.

Read what you post before posting next time, mmmk punkin'?
Click to expand...

One example of many, as I mentioned.

Here's a local one:

http://www.courts.alaska.gov/forms/civ-109.pdf

As you can see, any form requires a process with oversight by the court. Find and link me 1 subpeona that doesn't require any oversight whatsoever, since I have now provided 2 that do.

It's pdf, so you'll have to click the link but don't worry, you'll find it pretty easy to read and won't have to go further than half a page to see my point.

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