Feds Push For Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking 400
An anonymous reader writes "An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance). The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.'"
Yeah, that's ok.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, in fairness (Score:4, Funny)
If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
[[/TROLL]]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be a wuss. Take your moderation like a man, even if you were joking.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument, while never voiced due to its absurdity seems the most common rationale for removing privacy protections.
The comment not a joke at all. It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt. You know, kind of like calling a failed politician, "Fucking Retarded" (you're brilliant, Stephen). See? Satire.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Informative)
Google : "Slippery slope"
We need to avoid these circular fallacies for eroding privacy requirements, such as:
"If you don't want people to know, you shouldn't do it" or "If you want privacy, you're probably a criminal"
Or my personal favorite, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you can't get in trouble".
Bullsh. You let people start talking like that, and pretty soon we're all goose-stepping towards Auschwitz.
This erosion of rights has got to be fought tooth and nail, now. Once we go warrant-free, there's no going back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Schmidt's comment, taking in context, was like saying:
"The cell phone companies already know and record your location. Turn your phone off if you don't want them tracking you. The tracking is fundamental to them providing cell phone service, and if they have it, the government will be able to subpoena it."
That seems like common sense, not sure what there is to get riled up about in there. Except for the government trying to get the data without a warrant, of course.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
The better question is why is the data retained for any time at all?
It should never be needed later, and should only be available while you are talking to that tower.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know a ton about cell phone tech, but for the search example, I know as a developer that I'd want to hang on to searches for data mining usage patterns to improve the search service.
I've never had the chance to anonymize data yet, but it seems like a one-way hash would be the only way you could anonymize the data while still continuing to tack new data onto the same "anonymous" user.
To take a wild stab at the cell phone location data - there are charges based on location, and they need to retain the
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:4, Insightful)
If multiple individuals reside at the address additional criteria can be gleaned by also tying it into where the cell being tracked goes from 9-5 daily.
Any time you begin to go down a slippery slope you've already lost. Warrents should always be required.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt.
No, actually, that was just his lead-in to his actual point:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
In other words, you have a CEO of a major, public corporation saying, "you can't trust us to keep your data private because, good intentions aside, the feds will slap us with a national security note and it's game over." Funny how I don't recall Yahoo!, Microsoft or any of the other major players pushing this point. Perhaps Google is the only one that gets these requests... or perhaps Schmidt is the only one telling you anything.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there? If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building? I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life? That's all ridiculous. Just because I don't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong. I just like my privacy, and they're interfering with that. It's not like it's anything new in this country (USA), but it's still wrong. Plain and simple.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:4, Interesting)
One huge fishing expedition.
"Police making arrests 'just to gather DNA samples'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8375567.stm [bbc.co.uk]
"NYPD tracking cell phone owners, but foes aren't sure practice is legal" http://tinyurl.com/y9lh6wq [tinyurl.com]
The NYPD seems to take an interest in your cell phone battery, and gets to note International Mobile Equipment Identity number.
Now the feds want to track you 'in the past'.
Adamo Bove, head of security at Telecom Italia showed what can be done with this tech via mapping out the CIA rendition in Italy in court. He later 'fell' to his death.
This tech works and now its been turned onto you with very limited court oversight.
Dump your phone after the first call, meet in public, in a pool/ocean.
If its mobile communications your gov was all over it from inception - its just getting more legal to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
'If I have nothing to hide, then DON'T SEARCH ME'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL
I think you mean to say the data is HISTROICAL. (Proper bolding is important.)
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.
And how do you get on their radar? Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him? Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard? Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony? Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?
(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?
I have a question for you.....
Does the "drug-dealing prostitute" need to be subjected to that type of treatment any more or less then you do?
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:4, Interesting)
No. Not even with some sort of evidence indicating that the person was both dealing drugs and prostituting. In the case that there was evidence, she should have been arrested and arraigned. Harrassing ANYONE on the street serves no purpose.
My wife is a personal trainer, and had a cop as a client. He said they were just seeing if they could make her cry. According to him, it is a game they play.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, you will explain to us all how the "blue code of silence" doesn't exist.
I've known enough cops to know that:
- the job makes you a paranoid, egomaniac nut job.
- cops "protect" each other.
The founding fathers knew that to. That why we rely on an independant magistrate to issue warrants to protect citizens, not "filling out a form" or "manager approval".
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE,
Then what is the problem with getting a warrant? The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.
Re:Well, in fairness (Score:5, Funny)
by Shotgun (30919) writes: Alter Relationship on Thursday February 11, @03:50PM (#31104624)
Dude, I'm a huge fan! I loved your work in Doom 2! And you got totally screwed for the "Best Supporting Actor" award for your role in Army of Darkness.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more evidence that B.O. is really George Bush III
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No kidding, the guy should be burned for weeks for aggravated treason.
This is for giving us hope, this is for taking it away...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
You do understand that Bill Clinton was doing the exact same thing that Bush had been and Obama is doing, right? Bill Clinton started a lot of the phone monitoring that Bush increased. The fact is that any president is going to push the envelop on what is possible, as will anyone that is engaged in any activity. It is only when a person is slapped with an order to stop fucking around that they will actually consider it. Probably.
The fact that the Justice Department is claiming this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a real problem. Yeah, they may continually violate people's right, but it is humorous that the government would be dumb enough to use such a stupid, untrue argument. Thank god for this "Hope" and "Change".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where in the Constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution. But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?"
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what I thought.
Now, I'm Canadian, so I'm not entirely versed in US Law (having learned most of it from Law and Order) but my understanding was:
The US Constitution is a list of things the Government is allowed to do. If it's not on the list, it's not okay.
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem as far as the federal government goes is the commerce clause taken together with rational basis review. If Congress passes a law that says 'Whereas interstate commerce is affected by the lederhosen industry, all citizens are required to wear lederhosen on Tuesdays. Violation is a felony punishable by five years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.', that's enough to say that they were exercising their power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Rational basis review means that a court won't overturn a commerce clause-based law if there is any rational way that the law relates to interstate commerce. And that includes enforcement when the actual act had nothing to do with interstate commerce.
For instance, a federal law that fixes grain prices will result in subsistence farmers being punished for violating it. (True story.) A federal law that says machine guns affect interstate commerce can be used to punish you for building a machine gun out of scrap metal even if none of it ever crossed state lines. (True story.) There are very few exceptions where the Supreme Court (after FDR and the New Deal) has thrown out a law for overstepping the authority of Congress under the commerce clause.
Long story short: Congress is allowed to do anything it wants, because everything has some effect on interstate commerce.
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
Congress can criminalize, under the interstate commerce clause, mere possession of a machine gun that has never itself been in interstate commerce. United States v. Stewart [wikipedia.org], which the 9th Circuit was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org], 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress can criminalize marijuana that has never been in interstate commerce because locally grown cannabis changes the supply and demand for the product in the interstate trade. The 9th Circuit ended up reinstating the machine gun guy's conviction even though he built the gun from scratch without crossing state lines.
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:4, Informative)
Courts have ruled, yes, but they still have no Consitutional authority to do anything of the sort that you've highlighted above. It's an abomination that we've allowed our government to so wildly overstep its authority.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the congress passing, the executive approving, and the court upholding (especially the HIGH court, who's ONLY call it to review the constitution), FUCK YES, it's constitutional, that the EXACT process the constitution set out!!!
A Warrant is only defined in the constitution in amendment 4 seperate from search and seisure, in that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" However, in amendment 5, you CAN be deprived of life, liberty, property through "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
What's that mean?
Well, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no you might sue. You have rights when you can get the cop fired and put into jail. The government prints money and they tax you for it they can effectively get as much as they want, they are exempt from many forms of debt collection. Effectively civil courts can not check the powers of governments, especially police forces. You need a criminal court with an unbiased prosecutor (read somebody that does not work at the DA's office) with the power to charge (via a grand jury) and imprison (via a jury).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, his possession of machine guns was in violation of the statute under which he was charged. The issue was not whether he had violated the statute but rather whether the statute was enforceable as a proper exercise of Congress's authority to pass laws u
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's correct but if they actually follow that, then the government is basically required to be tiny, and politicians can't really bribe the voters if the .gov is tiny so they ignore it.
Re:Where in the Constitution? (Score:4, Funny)
so I'm not entirely versed in US Law (having learned most of it from Law and Order)
That's ok. Everything I know about Canada comes from Rush lyrics and South Park.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not though, unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant. Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment (there will necessarily be thousands of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic: there can be both false positives and false negatives.
That data doesn't belong to the phone companies, and even if it did, the phone com
But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
The American Constitution is dead. It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited by the frauds who claim to represent us. What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.
In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government. In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.
Turtles all the way down... (Score:2)
So, what you propose is to create not only a new constitution every fifty years, but also to maintain a meta-constitution to restrict even the creation of the fifty-year constitution?
Although I do like the "get everyone to agree on the terms by which they will consent to be governed every generation." idea.
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because there is new technology, does not change the ways laws should be enforced. A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter. If you intercept a letter, it's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone's cell phone conversation. The government would like people to believe that there's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hearitly agree with what you're saying, except for the "MUCH expanded Bill of Rights". The Constitution was not intended to be a blacklist of things the government can't do; it's a whitelist of things they can do. If it's not in the whitelist, they can't do it.
So counter-intuitive though it may seem, if any list needs to be expanded it's the whitelist of things they can do, along with a generous helping of pounding it into their heads that if it's not enumerated as one of their powers, and they try it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.
Oh HELL no. I can tell you what that leads to: the abomination that is the EU constitution. About 200 pages in small print.
No, No, and No.
I love the US Constitution because it is short and specific. Everyone can read it over a lunch break. It covers broad areas and puts lower (or upper) limits on what can be implemented, but doesn't spell out the legalistic details. Please don't touch it. There are a few issues with it, but nothing that requires a wholesale rewrite. And for the record - the issues I refer t
Re: (Score:2)
When the speach becomes more complex (Score:5, Interesting)
you can bet they are violating the intent. As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do. The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about. It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.
Remember, those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals.
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:4, Interesting)
No normal government will ever tie their own hands. Right after a revolution - be it a war of independence or civil war - is the only time when people wronged by the government will sit in government and have the power to do anything about it. The rest of the time, claw into what you have and don't let go - it's not coming back.
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
But it DOES violate. From their own argument:
"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"
Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.
In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:
a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:
- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records
- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records
- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records
- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records
- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records
- etc.
Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You forget the 5th amendment, for which with DUE PROCESS alone, the government CAN take your life, liberty, or property, with restrictions.
However, that's irrelevant. There's nothing PRIVATE about where you went in public, where any officer so deputized could simply have followed you. Federal district court already rules that simply with due process, cops could place a tracking device on your car, in lieu of following you with manpower, given probable cause in an active case, and following due process. T
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's my interpretation, but it's an educated interpretation based on why I think someone would have written it in the 1880's...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My take on it in a more contemporary way is that we are allowed to have guns so that we can assassinate political leaders. Now obviously if one assassinates a political leader you would be charged with murder or treason or just plain dead.
Why is that my take on it? Well, we aren't exactly allowed to have any weapons that would be effective at fighting the US military so its not like we can exactly revolt. Since the second amendment was put specifically for revolt then assassination would be the modern ap
Re: (Score:2)
user@darkstar:~$ links -dump http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html [cornell.edu] | grep "the people"
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
or to the people.
Why is it that one of these "the peoples" isn't considered to be The People?
The 2nd is there to pr
Re: (Score:2)
I think you would be interested to know where artillery used in the revolution came from. To interpret "arms" as anything other than "any and all arms" just because you're afraid of people sane enough to acquire a massive enough fortune to acquire expensive, gigantic weapons but insane enough to actually do so and further insane enough to use them is to emasculate the constitution as a controlling document.
If you think the second (or any other) amendments, articles, or clauses should be more permissive of
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is true. We need an amendment that says -- and I think the more plain English the better -- something along the lines of: communication on the internet is protected in the same way any other communication is protected. It is not a new frontier, it is just another communications tool. For each new communications tool, all previous rights and privileges need necessarily still apply.
Well, something like that. It should be really broad and obvious. When in doubt, you have the right to say it. When in doubt, the government can't get it without a fucking warrant. Maybe it should just say that (sans fuck).
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having read some of the comments below I'd suggest you go a step further and impose criminal penalties for any person or company that surrenders personal information to law enforcement without a warrant.
I may be wrong, but on our side of the pond one of the few cases where an employee can be held individually subject to criminal prosecution is a breach of the Data Protection Act.
Re:But what about the spirit? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not as USian
Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American". I stopped reading right there.
Is this GPS, or Tower data? (Score:2)
I have my phone to only give out GPS data on 911 calls. Is that what they are interested in? The exact location of people (within a hundred yards or whatever) without a warrant, or just which towers they pinged off of at a given time?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be the grammar/spelling police, but since you used it twice - IN ALL CAPS - please, Please, PLEASE be advised that "a lot" is two fucking words.
Good job on the the rest of your post though.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually.... I can't see the supreme court ruling that this holds water without overturning current precedent.
This is NOT DIFFERENT from the argument as to why IR cameras need a warrent. The technology has the potential to reveal personal information (the example used in the case was the heat signature indicitive of when you are in the shower, thus revealing when you shower to an outside observer) that the average person would think unreasonable for any person on the street to be able to divine about them.
EFF submission shows how FBI cell tracking works (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, they should be required to abide by the **spirit** of the 4th amendment.
"I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too because I've got a monopoly on violence."
So where's the Fed tracking web site? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's ludicrous - only the Police, the National Guard and Federal employees can be trusted with that kind of access. Every other person in the US is just not trustworthy enough to handle this kind of responsibility.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Obama must first guarantee no abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama doesn't care. His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy."
No reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the location of their phone. And in part because it's only a "general" indication of location.
Which is still complete bullshit -- thank God the meat of the article is about a Magistrate denying them this ability. But they're not denying expectation of privacy ever exists.
No, no, this is just another case of the Obama DoJ defending actions taken by the
Meet the new boss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MeetTheNewBoss should be a tag on here already
More to the point, (Score:2, Interesting)
just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place?
Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
1) if the feds require the data retention, then a warrant is necessary to access the customer's information.
2a) if the feds do not require data retention, then a warrant is required to access the carrier's information.
2b) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information, find a carrier that doesn't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.
It's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical, summary information that
requires some hacking activism (Score:4, Insightful)
publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations
sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness
of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites
Letter of the Law vs. Spirit of the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.
Is very simple, my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government's business. You want to know, get a warrant. None of this loop-hole business. Makes me happy to not own a cell phone, since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis.
I thought Bush was the fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.
No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.
Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.
Re:I thought Bush was the fascist (Score:5, Informative)
Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.
Well, that's exactly right, the US Constitution is founded on a political concept of negative reciprocity. It's a promise of a limit of power from a government in exchange for a minimal surrender from the people.
A promise obviously broken.
Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
No. This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.
Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Your surety is mistaken. I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama. I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome. Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.
"[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you,"
That is exactly correct. The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do. Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).
But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct. The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.
"but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."
The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote. That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.
Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution? If the latter, could you elaborate please? I am not following, but I am deeply interested.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have a cell phone... (Score:2)
... and I never will.
Reason: I have quite a bit of training in radio and satellite communications, radio frequency radiation and the like.
I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.
As a result, I have an aversion to carrying a transmitter on my person.
And, it looks like, as an added bonus, "someones" will not be able to track me (or attempt to do so) by my non-existent cell phone.
Note: In an emergency, there are probably 20 people in a four square block area with cell phones (if not more
This violates our WA State Constitution (Score:2, Interesting)
Unlike some other states, we have strong protections for privacy in our state, and you can't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant, or enable that On*Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.
Thus, anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park, would still need a warrant.
Anyone.
Including the feds.
Meet the new Boss! (Score:2)
Same as the old boss!
I guess "The Who" had it right.
Not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
> these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts
These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...
Re:What happened to warrants? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They need the government's blessing to make a profit so are all to willing to turn over your records upon request.
I think the "to make a profit" part might be a stretch. Maybe it's not always the case, but I seem to hear a lot about the high profit margins for cell phone companies and ISPs (which does exclude traditional phone and TV, so maybe they are having harder times). I think part of it is they want to be able to keep their fake competition and continue exploitation of the consumer, and playing nice with the FBI is one way to help that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a look at what happened to the QWest CEO when he told the government his company wasn't going to be doing something that sure looks to be illegal. Not only did they lose a lot of government business, but he personally was charged with insider stock trading.
If you say no to those people you'd better be squeaky clean (and even then you might end up framed for something).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And why do you think they are keeping that data? Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so? The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game, sounds awfully suspicious.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The title is confusing because "warrantless" in this case means "without a warrant" (Warrant being a glam metal band from the 80s), whereas
"warrantless" is usually taken to mean "unjustified",
Stop right there.
unwarranted having no justification, groundless
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
There's no need to split hairs. If the cops had grounds for a warrant, and could justify their reasoning to an independent magistrate, they would have a warrant. A warrantless search is an unwarranted search.
This is basic english, folks.
Re:Hope and Change, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous Troll writes:
"I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. "
FTFA:
"Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. "
Gasp! Shock! Amazement!
People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Have a problem with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because Republicans have been the bastion of reason and protectors of constitutional rights and freedoms lately. Did you forget about the USA PATRIOT Act already? Warrantless wiretaps of the previous administration? Mindlessly and wantonly increasing airport security rules? Did you just crawl out of Vault 101?
Far be it from me to tell you who to vote for, but voting blindly for any one party only seems to make this mess worse.
Re:Have a problem with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I liken America to a child with 2 abusive parents. They each play off the other to win the child over then proceed to beat the crap out of them. Then the other parent comes to the child's rescue with candy and toys, telling them they'll be good to them, back and forth never changing their ways. Are we really this stupid?
Re:Have a problem with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Yes we are...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really.
It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...
But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America. Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We've grown into this "NEW America"... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.
I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet, but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with t