x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Prosecution argues that turning on your phone means you consent to being tracked

Prosecution argues that turning on your phone means you consent to being tracked

Posted: , by Alan F.

Prosecution argues that turning on your phone means you consent to being tracked
Back in 2014, Baltimore cops were looking for one Kerron Andrews. A warrant was issued for Mr. Andrews as the cops were looking to arrest him for attempted murder. And while the cops did not request an approval to use a device called the Hailstorm to find their man, they employed it anyway. The Hailstorm is a tracking tool similar to the Stingray, in that it intercepts and collects bulk data headed to a cell tower. The data can be used to help find someone's location. It also records all of the person's phone calls.

The Hailstorm did lead to Mr. Andrews whereabouts, and he was arrested. But the judge, after discovering that the police used the Hailstorm without approval, said that the cops had violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search  and seizure. The judge granted a request by the defense to suppress the evidence collected by the Hailstorm.

The state has appealed the decision, and in its filing it presents a legal theory that is disturbing. The prosecution says that since every cellphone sports an off switch, Andrews' decision to have his phone turned on indicated he was consenting to be tracked.

If the appeals court goes along with this argument and allows the evidence collected by the Hailstorm to be used during the trial, it will mean that as far as the cops are concerned, you are giving up your privacy each time you press that power button on your handset and turn it on.

As soon as we hear how the appeals court rules, we will let you know. In the meantime, better keep your finger off the power button on your phone if you don't want the authorities to know what you are up to.

This argument made by the prosecution says that you are consenting to be tracked whenever you turn on your handset

This argument made by the prosecution says that you are consenting to be tracked whenever you turn on your handset


Thanks for the tip!

source: DeepDotWeb via TheNextWeb

61 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:35 3

1. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Right on. If your not commiting a crime, what are you worried about? Why would authorities need to triangulate your position and start recording your calls? I'd rather be safer than sorry. Heck, google keeps my gps history (it's marked as private) by they have it. Have many times do people "check in" and what not. Same thing. I don't have an issue with this.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:43 4

2. Bm888 (Posts: 390; Member since: 06 Jul 2015)


It's human nature to want to enjoy privacy but again.. In this time and world, with all this tech gadgets, privacy remains relative and what can save one is just being on the right side of the law...

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 15:00 5

8. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


Foolish thinking........ Being on the right side of the law has nothing to do with it. You better go investigate people who have been on the right side of the law being arrested

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 15:23

10. Bm888 (Posts: 390; Member since: 06 Jul 2015)


No matter how much we whine about wanting privacy whilst same time using the tech gadgets, the truth is it ain't possible to have complete privacy.. Not unless one lives in seclusion (out of this world).. So one has to be careful ultimately

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 17:32 8

19. KyleRiemen (Posts: 111; Member since: 29 Oct 2014)


Many of the things the nazis did, was in compliance with the law... Law is not always right. Lets assume the law is discriminating towards black people, you disagree with the law, you start to convince other people, but before you could successfully start a mass social movement against the government, you are finding yourself in jail. Because they are watching all you steps, they were able to neutralize you.
Allowing someone to watch your steps, will give them the power to control your steps.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:06 1

22. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


The problem you are presenting is stating that the blacks are doing nothing wrong and there is a law to put them in jail for it.

This person is obviously doing something wrong. That is the kicker. And trying to tie any discrimination or big brother to it...simply overreaching straws.

You want all this wireless tech....but want no one to know your business....no.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:44 1

27. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


The law being presented has nothing to do with anyone doing something wrong, and everything with the powers to be stripping you of your privacy rights whether you have done anything wrong or not.....wake UP!

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 03:42 1

36. tedkord (Posts: 9865; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


You completely misunderstood gods point. But, it's not that anyone wants criminals to get away with their crimes, but there needs to be checks on government power. They should be required to attain a warrant to track someone.

And, yes. We should be able to enjoy this tech without the government prying into our business.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:52 1

28. joey_sfb (Posts: 5236; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)


Need to update the law to cover surveillance in digital age. Under what circumstances can an individual privacy be invaded.

The company I work for has very strict sop on our clients confidentiality and privacy.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:57 18

5. Rydsmith (Posts: 486; Member since: 20 Jun 2012)


"If your not commiting a crime, what are you worried about?"

This rationale is literally what assists totalitarianism and facists. What you consider "wrong" or a "crime" may not be wrong to another or to the general public.

What if the law becomes that wearing glasses is wrong and all people should be killed that wear them? (Khmer Rouge, 1975....let that date sink in, only 40 years ago)

What if the law says that being gay is wrong and should be executed (UAE, Chad, etc....today)? Should they be tracked down using their phones and executed?

Mind you their family and friends are there, they didn't choose to live there, they were born there.

To state that "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is ludicrous. What about a wrong ID on someone, like Amadou Diallo who was shot 40 times by police (February 4 1999, he was unarmed) because they thought he was someone else? Compound this with just being in the vacinity of someone else they are looking for, it's ridiculous to claim "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 16:09 1

15. MrElectrifyer (Posts: 1883; Member since: 21 Oct 2014)


Solid response! Hope you don't mind if I save this your awesome post for future reference.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:12 2

23. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


The law will get it wrong sometimes. That is HUMAN nature. However, for every innocent that goes into the system there is a hundred bad people there because of the law.

What you are talking about is making a law for doing nothing.

As well, if it was a law to literally kill everyone with glasses, which is such a far reach it is tinfoil hat laughable, but lets play along. Then why would you use tech that can track your four eyed freakazoid self? And why wouldn't you take them off, wear contacts, then hop the boarder out of there? Or better yet, take a few of the 2 eye'd retards with you in a stand of defense. America didn't win its independence by making a law...they took it by FORCE. For decades we were the BAD GUYS, but we won so we got to make the new laws of the land.

So while I don't agree with the...if you aint doing nothing wrong don't worry mentality. You are using a device, that is monitored and overseen by the regulatory body that you are breaking the law with. So deal with better tech.

Right now they are in a catch 22.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:28 1

26. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Wow extreme cases you provided when the ones enforcing the law weren't really upholding the law.

Why would the police need to track anyone? WTF are you doing that the police need to find you asap?

Let's say your spouse or child goes missing, would you want the cops the file for a search warrant, wait, and then try to locate them? Or would you want them found as soon as possible? What if your child or spouse is diabetic as well? I'm sure the kidnapper took the insulin as well.

Wouldn't you want a suspected terror suspect tracked, and things recorded to make sure nothing was going to go down? Or if it was, to stop it?

You all need to calm down.

My point was, using logic, and being able to deduce that with in reason, they should be able to locate anyone. In the US, cops cant detain you if you havent broken amy laws. They can only arrest you if you broke a law. So what are you worried about?

Heck, my name pops up on the no fly list(I didn't do anything, but it's the same as some a$$ hole who did), I would be glad to not be harrased by cops. Listen to my calls, asking what's for dinner, or do I need to pick up groceries on my way home, normal things.

Search warrant or not, they will get info on you anyway if they want it. You can cry about it, but it doesn't change the fact it's possible and happens.

We live in a day and age where this is needed to help protect millions of people. Wouldn't it have been better if terror attacks were stopped before happening? Sexual predators stopped before harming anyone else? Know dangerous criminals stopped? I guess you all don't think so.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 03:49 3

37. tedkord (Posts: 9865; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Strawman argument. If my wife or child were missing, I would give permission to track the phone. No warrant necessary. Heck, I could even do it myself.

This is a country founded on freedom. There are countries right now that track their citizens, and you're welcome to move to one. But I guarantee you won't feel any safer.

”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” - Benjamin Franklin

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 05:49

41. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Benjamin Franklin never lived in the digital age, where today's security is different than it was back then. When did I say to track everyone all the time? Also, if you are on the wrong side of the law, I hope you get caught. Why should I, a law biding citizen have to live in fear of of scum bag? They get to break the law, with out consequences, and no fear of being caught?

Like I stated above, if your suspicious, they should be as to locate you and what not. If you are not, no worries then, right? Heck, if you are suspicious, they will get a search warrant and do it anyways. So your argument is kind of moot any ways.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 14:12

46. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


Ben wrote this very well knowing that from thgis comes tyranny...wake up digital age has mothing to do with fighting security breaches afar vs stalking your own people because you are afraid of rebellion.

Yes, rebellion they are stripping your rights from underneath you by trying to make you feel as if you need them to look after your well being by snooping on you whether a crime was committed or not.

Cuber security, and infringing on a persons personal privacy just because you can are two different things my friend. Wake UP!

As mentioned above go read how Hitler got so powerful. He set up his totalitarian regime right under everyones unsuspecting nose while many of them cheered him on.

You are already in a police stae but you have not realized it, and by the time you do just like in Germany it will be too late. Jesse Ventura did a program on it "S02E04 – Police State" on True TV, and they ran him out of the US for letting the cat out of the bag. They cancelled his conspiracy show when it was the highest ranking show ever on that channel.

WAKE UP!

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 17:41 2

47. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Your making a big jump from being able to locate criminals to a totalitarian state. The guy they caught was a suspected murderer. If they did this to catch Joe schmoe who ran a red light, that's different.

If they use it to catch criminals, go for it. I'm sure it's expensive to use and keep on. Having all that data collected and stored and sorted through. So it's not like they will keep it running on everyone 24/7.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 21:35

49. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


No..... the big JUMP is from trying to catch a criminal to the point that everyone is a potential criminal so we will eliminate your right to privacy to catch criminals. This is also a way to prevent you from rebelling against totalitartian laws that are already being set in place.

Trying to instill fear about criminals to get you to feel ok with sacrificing your rights to privacy is a big step in totalitarian rule....wake UP!

There are reports that the rebel against wall street had the FEDS tracking peoples phones, and taking pictures of would be future rebels as well as tracking their travels, conversations, and associations. In police state Jesse shows that they have files on people that meet at such locations under surveillance. This got his show cancelled while it was at its peak, and they chased him out of the states for a while...... really.

Ben Franklin knew too well this scenario from the tyrannical powers that he felt from England. This government is already in that state...look up oligarchy.

Better yet:

a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.

The worlds top 5% of wage earners set policy change and regime rules for the whole wolrd....reference Bilderberg group.

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 07:05 1

50. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


The moment you stated Bilderberg group, which I am familiar with, is the moment I knew any logical debate would go out the window.

Face it. People want laws. People with kids want to be able to track down criminals without redtape.

There is a line, and who gets to define that line is who is in power. As well, even during the Revolution, the USA was all about secrecy and catching and snooping. If you think otherwise, and then attempt to use Benjamin as some example, you are basically picking info so minute to setup an argument it is just all tinfoil hat.

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 09:02

54. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


The debate is still logical...... To sacrifice privacy for all because some may, or have committed a crime is a BIG step in the wrong direction. Law enforcement can still use due process and get a warrant in a day. When there are checks and balances in place such as the need for a warrant before some one decide to take the law into their own hands is how it should be

Whe

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 10:17

55. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Ok we will keep it logical then.

Since the digital age is using a non-visible but open technology. Then we have to logically assume it is no different than someone screaming out.

Because....all humans have ears to capture the waves of sound, which are invisible to the human eye. However, if someone is deaf they cannot hear this communication. Does that mean I cannot use ears to catch someone in the act because not every human posses this ability?

Calls are not encrypted, calls are readily able to be heard, or intercepted by a device that in all intents and purpose is like an ear. The user, is literally digitally shouting into the airwaves.

Just like the person shouting outside presumes no privacy, a person shouting information through a digital medium can also not be guaranteed no snooping is present. This includes law enforcement.

Don't take this as a 'if you aren't doing anything wrong you aint got nothing to worry about' stance, far from it. I am with you on many many fronts, but our laws are very out of date on the digital age, I see open wireless signals as the same as shouting outside. You want privacy don't use open signals, encrypt your transmission and be done with it.

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 14:45

56. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


This has nothing to do with wire tapping....which also should be under checks and balances. Digital age or not you are entitled to privacy. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE UP YOURS SO BE IT.

I AM NOT SHOUTING OUTSIDE when I am on the phone and that is just your opinion. I just say let's just agree to disagree, based on the bull that I just read... You are entitled to your own opinion.

posted on 14 Feb 2016, 11:11

58. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


My opinion is don't be stupid when shouting out either verbally or electronic signals that can be intercepted.

If you are that concerned about privacy to this extent, to the point of shouting at everyone to 'wake up'.

Then in the end use encryption, Thomas Jefferson did it after the Department of Foreign Affairs gave them the right to open mail when it concerned national interests in 1785.

posted on 14 Feb 2016, 17:38

60. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


Your opinion is a foolish one......you fail to recognize that it is not about saying or doing something while the possibility of some one may be listening.

It is about due process of the law to protect the privacy of the innocent. When those laws are violated to catch criminals, and then rewritten with out prejudice to catch would be criminals before they commit a crime violates the law, freedom and ushers in the beginning of oppression.

Ben Franklin's quote is so appropriate regarding this.......... WAKE UP!

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 18:44 1

48. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Your making a big jump from being able to locate criminals to a totalitarian state. The guy they caught was a suspected murderer. If they did this to catch Joe schmoe who ran a red light, that's different.

If they use it to catch criminals, go for it. I'm sure it's expensive to use and keep on. Having all that data collected and stored and sorted through. So it's not like they will keep it running on everyone 24/7.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 20:10

29. cncrim (Posts: 790; Member since: 15 Aug 2011)


Right on, well written.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:59 6

7. VVayne (Posts: 56; Member since: 01 Oct 2015)


Indeed sir. You probably also don't need freedom of speech, because you have nothing relevant to say.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 15:14 2

9. avalon2105 (Posts: 225; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


"If you have nothing to hide" is one of the dumbest examples one can give.
Can you say for certain than you are not breaking any law in your country? Not everything should be made public and peoples right to privacy should be pretty high on list of everyone's priorities.
It's much like taking a s**t. Everybody does it, and it's perfectly normal, but no one should see you do it. Likewise, where I am is my business alone. Nobody should be able to locate me if I'm not giving them my location by choice.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:14 2

24. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


That is like you sounding off an alarm, walking around town with it blaring and getting mad at people for being able to find you.

You are using tech that can be monitored. While I don't agree with the whole you aint doing nothing wrong etc mentality either, don't be stupid and use a device that can be tracked.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 03:52

38. tedkord (Posts: 9865; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Your house probably has windows, but that doesn't mean people can just walk up to them and stare in.

Just because it can be doesn't mean it should be, or that the authorities should have unrestricted rights to track it.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 05:56 2

42. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


If screaming is heard from your house, and some one peeks in through a window, where they justified in doing so?

Having proper reason to do it, is okay. When did I say all the time? If you are not setting off alarms for authorities to check In on you, what seems to be the issue? The technology exists, it's being used. Can made legal by a search warrant, if they really, really, really, need to track you and record your calls, and use it in court against you. Again, why are you on trail again? Committed some kind of crime right? Or else no trial, or you being tracked and recorded wouldn't be needed in the first place, If you weren't doing anything to begin with. So your argument is baseless.

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 07:11

51. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Actually yes they can. Without a sign to say no trespassing, they can approach you and look in your windows. Especially if there is reason. If you walked by the house, a citizen or cop can peak in if they hear awkward noises. Hell a telemarketer can peak in your front windows to see if your home - I would like to see you try and file a law breaking complaint on that. Only if you tell them stop are you now able to go further.

Not about just because it can, the device is regulated by a government body. Go read any carriers agreement and no where on their agreement does it ensure any privacy.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 09:37

45. avalon2105 (Posts: 225; Member since: 12 Jul 2014)


Yes, it can be located but it doesn't mean it should be, or even that law enforcement agencies should be allowed to do it.
I'm fully aware they could locate anyone using GPS in their phone but they need warrant and reasonable cause for that. In this case, the search was done without the warrant and it could set a dangerous precedent in US law.
Would you be okay with FBI listening and recording your phone calls? They obviously can do that, and wouldn't need reasonable cause if this goes through.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 15:41 1

12. downphoenix (Posts: 3149; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


This guy may have been a criminal, but if we allow this line of thinking, what's to stop from saying you being considered a criminal for whatever it is?

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:54 1

3. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1041; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


It is a slippery slope that can be used for wrong doing.... When I turn on my cell phone I don't consider it permission for some one to track me. Even though I realize that I can be tracked I do not authorize any one to track me. If you can not understand that than go to a communist nation where there are no privacy laws.

It is not about being foolish enough to commit a crime with it on and you are foolish if you think it is

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:54 6

4. gersont1000 (Posts: 274; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)


I can only laugh at and feel sorry for those commenters who say that if you're not committing a crime, you shouldn't worry and saying privacy is not important. You're fools. And going by your way of thinking, I wish that it was possible for the government to create a law where those of you saying that will be forced to live in glass houses and have all your conversations posted online for everyone to see and hear. Because, according to you, it shouldn't be a problem since you're doing nothing wrong. Get a clue!

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 06:02 1

43. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Having authorities listen in, and the general public listen in are completely different. I wish people like you, who make dumb comments like these, should move to another continent. For security purposes, proper authorities should be able to do this. Would you walk through a body scanner or be body searched when you walk into a grocery store? But you submit to it at the airport, why? SECURITY purposes. Or do you drive across country to avoid it? You logic is flawed and want to generalize a security issue into something it isn't.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 14:58 1

6. MrElectrifyer (Posts: 1883; Member since: 21 Oct 2014)


Curious, what if it's in Airplain mode with just WiFi on, is it still sending signals to cell towers? I would presume no...

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 16:02

13. downphoenix (Posts: 3149; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


you can't use airplane mode and wifi at the same time. Airplane mode shuts off ALL signals.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 16:06 3

14. MrElectrifyer (Posts: 1883; Member since: 21 Oct 2014)


You can turn on airplane mode then turn back on WiFi or Bluetooth, I presume that doesn't turn on the cellular signals as I don't see any bars on my phone when I do that.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 22:17

32. ibend (Posts: 3163; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)


or just "pull out your simtray" and use wifi...

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 15:24 1

11. talon95 (Posts: 419; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)


By waking up in the morning and still being alive you are consenting to being tracked under this logic. Or don't drive a car with OnStar because cops don't need a warrant to track it. Or don't use a bluetooth watch because cops can track it. If Americans truly have 4th amendment rights then this certainly defies that right.
If he's a crook that needs to be tracked then get a warrant to do so, anything else is illegal.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 16:23 1

16. combatmedic870 (Posts: 547; Member since: 02 Sep 2015)


This is crap and IS a violation of our forth amendment rights. This needs to be shut down asap. f**k this s**t

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 17:19 2

17. lp_522 (Posts: 46; Member since: 31 May 2011)


All this is police trying to abuse the system. Everyone that uses their cell phone has reason to a sense of privacy. Which is why devices of the sort are illegal to use without a warrant. They should've done their f**kng job, follow their own law, and put in the required paperwork. A criminal might walk now for their idiocy.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 17:25

18. Blazers (Posts: 416; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)


Hmmm this makes me miss the Nokia 3310/90/60 days.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 22:14

31. ibend (Posts: 3163; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)


(all phone that send/recieve signal from BTS can be tracked..
it may cant pinpoint exact location, but it know those phone receive signal from which BTS, or more exact location if your phone recieve signal from signal from several BTS)

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 17:47 1

20. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 459; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)


You can't consent to something you don't know about. The police didn't make any effort to inform the suspect of the existence of Hailstorm or of the police's intent to use it to track the individual. How then can turning the phone on offer implicit consent?

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 18:02 1

21. epdm2be (Posts: 451; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)


"...decision to have his phone turned on indicated he was consenting to be tracked...."

WTH, having a cellphone turned indicates to be available for a call NOT consenting to be tracked or spied upon!!!! What is this world turning into? f**king Nazi's!

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 19:18 2

25. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


You are allowing the carrier to triangulate your position. You sign this agreement when you get a cell phone. Not only that, all carriers respond to warrents and work with law regularly to track criminals etc. You give this right when you sign the papers to get their service. THey have to because by providing a cell signal, they are complying with the government body.

I don't agree with the idea, however, to honestly think you cannot be tracked...dumb as s**t. Don't like it. Don't use a device that is governed by the government for which the signal goes over.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 03:56

39. tedkord (Posts: 9865; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


The key word there was warrants. This is a governmental agency claiming they have the right to track anyone, anytime without a warrant.

No one thinks he can't be tracked, we simply think the government shouldn't be allowed to track us without a properly attained warrant.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 06:05 2

44. bambamboogy02 (Posts: 502; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)


Warrant for arrest was issues for the person, who attempted murder. That should be reason enough to get his butt in authorities hands as soon as possible. Not wait for a search warrant. Or you disagree?

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 03:57

40. tedkord (Posts: 9865; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


And, BTW, the U.S. government doesn't own the bandwidth, the people do. They simply regulate it for us.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 21:37

30. Trakker (Posts: 283; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)


When will Americans learn that they can complain as much as they like but legality and public opinion have been proved to mean absolutely nothing unless people like the Koch brothers also agree.

posted on 11 Feb 2016, 23:39

33. roscuthiii (Posts: 2148; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)


They should have gotten a warrant first. Simple as that. But, the warrant should have given them the authority to track as much as they needed.

That being said, it's pure naivete not to realize that since the dawn of humanity when people were dwelling in caves that the chief wasn't having his men look in on people without asking first. Human nature is human nature.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 02:46

34. HonestRealist (Posts: 196; Member since: 25 Jan 2016)


Bulls**t... Complete bulls**t.

posted on 12 Feb 2016, 02:57 2

35. dancheung77 (Posts: 191; Member since: 28 Jan 2015)


All they need to do is to request an approval to use tracking device, it's their mistake for not requesting approval in the first place. It's like going into someone's place without a warrant but argue the front door is wide open so they don't need any legal documents to enforce it

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 07:15

52. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


They technically could. Ever heard of reasonable suspicion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

posted on 13 Feb 2016, 08:59 1

53. dancheung77 (Posts: 191; Member since: 28 Jan 2015)


It all depends.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

posted on 14 Feb 2016, 11:18

59. elitewolverine (Posts: 5003; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)


Reasonable Suspicion is enough to disregard expectation of privacy.

But you bring up a good point in whether this should be allowed.

If I call you, should I expect privacy? Or should my space, as mentioned in your link, be my only privacy expectation. Because I have no clue what is happening on the other end of the line.

So for this case one could greatly argue, that is expectation of privacy is only for this surroundings, that once it left his space it is free game. Of is end to end transmission a right of privacy? Even though it is once more, open space.

Interestingly enough, there is no protection from police drones, as long as there is no modification that "unreasonably enhances the surveying government official's vision".

With that idea, they are going to argue, that the transmitted signals are in open space, and they are not using unreasonable device to capture open waves. Just as a drone is used to see you outside of your house or in a field or in a barn. Or how no warrant is needed to have a dog sniff your car for drugs, even if there is NO reason to think drugs are involved.

One this is clear, there needs to be a Clear law on whether it is ok or not, because the current laws do not cover it at all.

posted on 14 Feb 2016, 19:47

61. dancheung77 (Posts: 191; Member since: 28 Jan 2015)


This gets way too complicated, let's talk phones lol

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories