Cops To Congress: We Need Logs of Americans' Text Messages 342
Dainsanefh tips a CNET report about a number of law enforcement groups who have put forth a proposal to the U.S. Senate to require wireless providers to keep logs of subscriber text messages for a minimum of two years.
"As the popularity of text messages has exploded in recent years, so has their use in criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. They have been introduced as evidence in armed robbery, cocaine distribution, and wire fraud prosecutions. In one 2009 case in Michigan, wireless provider SkyTel turned over the contents of 626,638 SMS messages, a figure described by a federal judge as 'staggering.' Chuck DeWitt, a spokesman for the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, which represents the 63 largest U.S. police forces including New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, said 'all such records should be retained for two years.' Some providers, like Verizon, retain the contents of SMS messages for a brief period of time, while others like T-Mobile do not store them at all. Along with the police association, other law enforcement groups making the request to the Senate include the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, DeWitt said."
The People to Cops.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The People to Cops.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The police normally only investigate crimes after they have already happened so they need to get evidence from the time period that the crime happened in.
I agree with you that they should need to get a warrant, much like they have to to get your phone records, but I think that they should be allowed to get text messages that are less than one month old, but beyond one month they should only get a notice that a text happened, but not the actual message.
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:4, Insightful)
Still not a fucking reason to give up an ounce of privacy. Crime is low. I don't see any evidence that the police can't manage to keep order without reading our SMS messages from the past two years.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't granting them access with a warrant. The problem is that they are trying to induce storage for no other reason than to maintain a POTENTIAL evidence database.
Why should there be a requirement to maintain these messages? Should there be a requirement to make a copy of every letter that passes through the post office and maintain it for x months? Of course not, because such a copy isn't necessary to transmit the letter.
I hate that people treat the default for all Rights these days in the manner of: None, unless proven otherwise.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
It's default that most phones save messages, and because it's convenient for a large majority of users. Due to this, phones record innumerable amounts of texts; smartphones especially.
Change how the phone works, and you change the expectation of content delivery, archival, and investigation.
Libraries Too (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the fact that my library (and most others) destroy records of checkouts after you return a book so that the information can't be used in an investigation or trial.
Just because I read some Karl Marx, doesn't make me a commie. Likewise, just because I texted a quote from the Koran doesn't make me a terrorist.
18 terabytes per month (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be unrealistic to record every phone call
I disagree. The capacity of communications networks increases over time, but the user base of voice does not increase as fast because it's already hit saturation. Say there are 300 million cell phone subscribers in a market, and each spends 1000 minutes on the phone per month, and each call is recorded at 8 kilobits per second. 300,000,000*1000*60*8/8 is only 18 terabytes per month. What's the total size in bytes of video uploaded to, say, YouTube per month?
Re:The People to Cops.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:4, Insightful)
Because warrants today are trivial, meaningless documents, except for the ridiculously wealthy. The average Joe doesn't know how to or have the means to hire somebody that can fight cases on procedural grounds, which results in a system that can be abused 99% of the time without repercussion... and you'd be a fool to think that the police do not both know about and take advantage of this.
In a system where you are entitled to only so much justice as you can afford, it is in our best interest to restrict whenever possible the powers of the police and the judiciary.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you were denied a clearance for an obvious lack of community ties. Stuff like that is important, because if you're going to be trusted with sensitive information, your superiors will want to be sure you have "something to lose," like your family and friends back home. If you are a non-entity with no clear motives and no attachments to other people, what's to stop you from selling everything you know to the highest bidder?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Catch 22: (Score:4, Insightful)
Polygraphs aren't used as lie-detectors (by any one competent). They're used to trick people into confessing (like all interrogation techniques).
When I was at LANL (2006) they didn't require them for clearance (and most of the cleared staff scientists I knew outright stated they would have refused them for exactly the reason you point out), but they did offer it as an option for "expedited clearance."
Re:Catch 22: (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't scare them, they don't give a shit about you. You were just item 17 on that day's list, and they had no problem at all checking the "Fucked" column next to your number.
On the other hand, you do post a lot here. Maybe they looked for, I don't know, a minute or two, and came up with gems like these from your posts;
"All I can do with knives is maim and injure"
"These weapons do not suit my purposes; I need greater options. I do not make threats; I take action."
Or THIS one, they just keep getting better!
"In a civilian clash with the military, the military loses."
You're not a blank, not a cipher - you're not the Nowhere Man. You're a fucking loon.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow western societies (both in Yurp and Yankeeland) these day's think you are a weirdo if you like your privacy.
The "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"-card is played far to easy, just as the "we need to do this to fight terrorists/paedophiles"-card. (respectively Yankeeland and Yurp in case you wondered) Do you, as a
The exception here is Germany, but than again they have had some experience with the government wanting to know a little bit to much about its civilians (Gestapo / Stasi, in case you were puzzled a bit again). The most important tool a government has to control its people is data. And if you think things like that wont happen these day's I guess you go and do a history course...
While you're there say hi to the guys of the SSD for me, will you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Department