Big Brothers (by the millions?) watching

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
SC also ruled yesterday that LEO's can take and open anything and even upload your info into their scanning devices from your cellphone without a warrant....a simple traffic stop is enough of a reason for them to now invade your privacy...no probable cause is needed....
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Now anyone with a smartphone can be big brother, using an app to notify DHS of anything or anyone they find suspicious.
Ahhhh ..... to TPTB: "Like Button" please ?

When one considers what happened in Afghanistan shortly after we arrived over there, it's not terribly hard to see where this will ultimately wind up ....

When they start offering "rewards" or "bounties", that's when ya really might wanna start worrying ...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
SC also ruled yesterday that LEO's can take and open anything and even upload your info into their scanning devices from your cellphone without a warrant....a simple traffic stop is enough of a reason for them to now invade your privacy...no probable cause is needed....

Let's see.... Not true, not true, not true, not true, and not true. Add two more to that. It was the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it was March 1, the ruling doesn't allow them to take and open anything - only the cell phone, and they cannot upload your info into their scanning devices without a warrant. A simple traffic stop is not enough of a reason, and probable cause is still needed. Here's the actual PDF of the actual ruling, courtesy of the American Bar Association Journal.

The ruling allows the police to search the phone in order to obtain that particular phone's telephone number, nothing more. It's specifically for the purposes of obtaining the number in order to then, at a later time, use a warrant to subpoena that phone number's call history from the phone carrier. It doesn't allow them to search anything else in the phone, including any files, pictures or even other phone numbers.

The ruling found that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

The case gave the court an occasion to examine just how far police can go when it comes to searching electronic gadgets, but the important question of just how far police can go in searching a phone's contents was left for another day.

"Lurking behind this issue is the question whether and when a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or other type of computer (whether called a 'computer' or not) can be searched without a warrant," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

He raised the example of the iCam, which allows someone to use a phone to connect to a home-computer web camera, enabling someone to search a house interior remotely.

"At the touch of a button, a cell phone search becomes a house search," he wrote.

Posner compared the cell phone to a diary. Just as police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy an owner's address, they should be able to turn on a cell phone to learn its number. But just as they're forbidden from examining love letters tucked between the pages of an address book, so are they forbidden from exploring letters in the files of a phone.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Let's see.... Not true, not true, not true, not true, and not true. Add two more to that. It was the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it was March 1, the ruling doesn't allow them to take and open anything - only the cell phone, and they cannot upload your info into their scanning devices without a warrant. A simple traffic stop is not enough of a reason, and probable cause is still needed. Here's the actual PDF of the actual ruling, courtesy of the American Bar Association Journal.

The ruling allows the police to search the phone in order to obtain that particular phone's telephone number, nothing more. It's specifically for the purposes of obtaining the number in order to then, at a later time, use a warrant to subpoena that phone number's call history from the phone carrier. It doesn't allow them to search anything else in the phone, including any files, pictures or even other phone numbers.

The ruling found that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

The case gave the court an occasion to examine just how far police can go when it comes to searching electronic gadgets, but the important question of just how far police can go in searching a phone's contents was left for another day.

"Lurking behind this issue is the question whether and when a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or other type of computer (whether called a 'computer' or not) can be searched without a warrant," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

He raised the example of the iCam, which allows someone to use a phone to connect to a home-computer web camera, enabling someone to search a house interior remotely.

"At the touch of a button, a cell phone search becomes a house search," he wrote.

Posner compared the cell phone to a diary. Just as police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy an owner's address, they should be able to turn on a cell phone to learn its number. But just as they're forbidden from examining love letters tucked between the pages of an address book, so are they forbidden from exploring letters in the files of a phone.

Yea i know, but the 2 Sheriff officers and el Paso LEO i talked to about it yesterday said, " we have been asking for cell phones and when given them been plugging them into scanners (much like the ones used by the cell companies to copy and transferr your info, data when you get a new phone) for a yr or do now and we download anything thats there..then we pick and choose what we want to look at...."

They also said, that it wasn't something they could force, but every rarely did anyone not give it up when asked....and this has also been going on in Michigan for a year or so...so while the SC decision isn't quite as i put it, it will just further the actions that more LEO's will do, most illegally...under the guise of the SC decision..

And as far as the "laptop" goes..well its not quite the same, but a fed judge forced awoman to provide the code for her encrypted laptop to allow police to use to prosecute her...

So personally and in my opinion, all the SC decision does is open the door just a bit more for more abuse...
 
Last edited:

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Lets see now, 20 million downloads to the DHS everyday on suspious behavior, hmm what is suspicous behavior, people in church, in a truckstop,in a Dennys, in a cat house, in a fredricks,in a dressing room, wow, what downloads of fun can this be and look at all the folks the DHS will be hiring.............my big old btttttttt. I say do it to it.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Again, it wasn't the SC, it was the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

As for the police, the key there is they ask for the phones, and people willingly hand them over for the police to search and/or upload to their kewl little tool. That's been going on for 3 or 4 years now.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
SC also ruled yesterday that LEO's can take and open anything and even upload your info into their scanning devices from your cellphone without a warrant....a simple traffic stop is enough of a reason for them to now invade your privacy...no probable cause is needed....

In that case, it's time to download a wipe app that can be activated as you hand it to them, our wipes if the wrong password is entered. Even if you've got nothing to hide, there's a principle involved.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Nope, would rather stub my toe than read anything by him.
The irony of that is that not only do you have an fundamental point of agreement with him with respect to the tyranny of the State, but you apparently also have some agreement with him about how to go about handling it.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows ....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The irony of that is that not only do you have an fundamental point of agreement with him with respect to the tyranny of the State, but you apparently also have some agreement with him about how to go about handling it.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows ....

He is not 'family'.


Here is how it works. I have a brother that is as wacky as Obama. He blames everyone for his problems and lack of success, as most modern 'liberals' or 'progressive' do. To him the fact that he never finished high school is not a problem. Neither is his total lack of skills. BUT, if an 'outsider' were to go after him the 'outsider' would be toast.

Also, I believe in our Constitution and this Nation, Julian Assange, does not.

Neither do most of today's so called 'liberals' or 'progressives' and
'conservatives'. They all want to only impose their 'solutions' on others and only by force.

This country is my 'family'. I will defend my 'family members', even the ones I don't like, from outside attacks. We can fix our problems form within. We will.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
He is not 'family'.

Here is how it works. I have a brother that is as wacky as Obama. He blames everyone for his problems and lack of success, as most modern 'liberals' or 'progressive' do. To him the fact that he never finished high school is not a problem. Neither is his total lack of skills. BUT, if an 'outsider' were to go after him the 'outsider' would be toast.
Yeah .... got it ... understand.

Also, I believe in our Constitution and this Nation, Julian Assange, does not.

Well .... I can understand how you might believe that .... given you've stated that you haven't read him ....

When I'm saying "read him" I mean read what he wrote where he delineated where he was at philosophically .... this was even prior to Wikileaks (just before it got going)

He actually holds the principles that this country was founded on in pretty high regard .... and has so stated many, many times ....

Neither do most of today's so called 'liberals' or 'progressives' and 'conservatives'. They all want to only impose their 'solutions' on others and only by force.
The State is largely nothing, if but exactly that .... a dramatization of the monopoly on the sole use of force ....

The intentions, at the beginning, are admirable .... and it always starts out good ... but always ends very, very badly ....

This country is my 'family'. I will defend my 'family members', even the ones I don't like, from outside attacks.
As would I ..... what I won't defend is tyranny ... even if that tyranny claims it is "family" ....

Anyone that defends tyranny is my enemy .... and anyone that defends liberty and the rights of my fellow man is my ally ....

We can fix our problems form within. We will.
Excellent !

..... LOS "the optimist" ..... ;)

I think between that and the following, I might just have hope:

NSA whistle-blower: Obama “worse than Bush”
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah .... got it ... understand.


[/COLOR]Well .... I can understand how you might believe that .... given you've stated that you haven't read him ....

When I'm saying "read him" I mean read what he wrote where he delineated where he was at philosophically .... this was even prior to Wikileaks (just before it got going)

He actually holds the principles that this country was founded on in pretty high regard .... and has so stated many, many times ....


The State is largely nothing, if but exactly that .... a dramatization of the monopoly on the sole use of force ....

The intentions, at the beginning, are admirable .... and it always starts out good ... but always ends very, very badly ....


As would I ..... what I won't defend is tyranny ... even if that tyranny claims it is "family" ....

Anyone that defends tyranny is my enemy .... and anyone that defends liberty and the rights of my fellow man is my ally ....


Excellent !

..... LOS "the optimist" ..... ;)

I think between that and the following, I might just have hope:

NSA whistle-blower: Obama “worse than Bush”

That 'fix' is NOT going to be pretty! Every nation goes through the same steps. Nothing new under the sun.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That's hard to fathom.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

Not hardly, try Bill Clinton. He was almost, not quite, as Obama. Bush was just the 'set up' man to make way for the 'messiah'.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Rlent, and Layout for that matter, there are two things that stick out in the article that you posted the link to.

The first has me worried not because of the actual idea that this is true but the perpetuation of the idea that we are threaten all the time by people external and with that we can't take care of ourselves as communities or citizens but need to have a big brother type system to do that for us.

Whether that’s Iran or homegrown terrorists or China?
Doesn’t matter, and especially when you have less understanding about it. Radically different cultures. Radically different environments. We don’t learn very well, except where it’s reflexively us. We have a tendency to project ourselves onto others. So yes, you have to manufacture if you’re making that kind of money. The national security state became a growth industry — huge redistribution of wealth. I had people coming to me: “Tom, you have to get out. The money is unbelievable. You can be a millionaire.”

The worry is that because he is acknowledging this is a growth industry, the oath that Layout is claiming to be important, isn't. Not saying he isn't taking his oath seriously but I question everyone else and their core values making money over the protection of the country.

I think he makes my point that we are not liked because we try to control others the way we want to see them.

The second comment is this

In the New Yorker article, Jane Mayer quotes you as saying, “I actually had hopes for Obama.” What’s your opinion on the Obama administration’s stated support for whistle-blowers and, more generally, his counterterrorism record?

Worse than Bush. I have to say that. I actually voted for Obama. It’s all rhetoric for me now. As Americans we were hoodwinked. He’s expanding the secrecy regime far beyond what the Bush even intended, interestingly enough. I think Bush is probably like, “Whoa.”

What I see is a soviet type comment, where secrecy was a national value. I don't think this would be limited to Obama but I think every president since Truman has expended our secrecy regime in one way or another and not one of them has ever retracted it for any reason. Bush expended it a lot, he created more walls and more problems for liberty, but again it seems people are willing to vote for Bush/Obama type candidate (three stooges) because they talk the talk that the people are used to hearing.

Maybe if we stop buying into this need to be secret about some things, like the design specs of a body scanner (TSA refused to give congress them in their entirety citing they are top secret), we can start returning to a free country.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What should be 'secret' in your eyes? If only things were as simple as you think.

Why does Bush get blasted more than Clinton? Not that Bush was worth a flip, but Clinton had NO respect for the idea of personal freedom and liberty. He was a HORRIBLE person and did amazing damage to freedom.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
What should be 'secret' in your eyes? If only things were as simple as you think.

Well I wouldn't make things like budgets secret or technology that is on the market secret. I asked you once what type of radio you operated, and amazingly the replacement for that radio has been on the market for 20 years which I own and I can't get a single thing about an "accessory" to it because it is still classified.

I would have to say operations things and some policies but I will tell what wouldn't be secret, a lot of FBI files.

Why does Bush get blasted more than Clinton? Not that Bush was worth a flip, but Clinton had NO respect for the idea of personal freedom and liberty. He was a HORRIBLE person and did amazing damage to freedom.

Well mainly because Bush started the entire DHS thing where Clinton didn't rearrange the internal organs of the security body. Bush's biggest issue is the idea that no one stands in the way of 'justice' and we have to find all terrorist any which way we can. He made the country safer for about a few months but we haven't had any real terrorist activity because I think it came down to them winning and knowing they have won.

If you look at what real damage has been done to liberty and freedom, it came from Bush and the need to feel secure. Clinton triggered a lot of things by having the wrong people in the wrong places but remember one important thing, that intel and the world you belonged to had a few good people around to watch over things but since 1970's with some in the FBI plying for power, we lost that direction of the country first within the boundaries of what the citizens allow them to a free for all that we have today.

Like I said in another thread, maybe this one, if you want a good illustration, look at how we went from a citizen core of controlling things within the communities to an interoperability government driven core - that's scary. One of the candidates, Romney was asked about this when he was governor and he is all for it, so to me he is like Obama and Clinton and Bush.
 
Top