If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Police want phone providers to save all texts..for two years..by the way, T- mobile does not save them at all. Verizon? Every damn one you've ever made   (news.cnet.com) divider line 169
    More: PSA, murder cases, U.S. Cellular, Declan McCullagh, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, CTIA, texting, outliers, Forrester Research  
•       •       •

8750 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Dec 2012 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-04 07:38:44 PM

The One True TheDavid: envirovore: frepnog:

I simply want the ability as the account holder to SEE every farking text sent on the website on a per-phone basis.

I have no idea why I can not.

Considering that my line is part of a family share plan (with my mother as primary account holder) and the contents of some of the texts which my girlfriend and I send to each other, I'm really glad that this option does not exist.

You're not old enough to buy your own beer yet, are you. Are you CUTE?!?


/obvious trolling really


Would lol again
 
2012-12-04 07:51:26 PM
I am totally fine with forcing companies to retain records, including texts, if requested by the police. It is not like this is anything new. If you have records that might pertain to a criminal act, and you know this, then it is quite obvious you are required by law to retain them. The police asking for them to be retained ensures you are aware, and so you must retain the records.Trying to avoid this is actually what took down Arthur Andersen during the Enron scandal.

That being said, a law requiring 2 year retention without a request is clearly unconstitutional and should never be allowed to stand.
 
2012-12-04 08:06:40 PM
I work for Verizon and that isn't true
 
2012-12-04 08:52:35 PM

sn82: olapbill: sn82: hehehe I'm sending sexy texts right now!

I've been sending random texts of me in my ho ho ho underwear all day.

Hey! Me too!


well now I just feel left out.
 
2012-12-04 09:44:11 PM

base935: I don't have anything to hide, so I'm ok with this.


Lets see if that's still true now that you've been implicated in a major crime.

\tipped off anonymously that is
 
2012-12-04 11:35:20 PM
www.walyou.com
 
2012-12-05 01:19:07 AM

Great Janitor: Pista: Do people still send texts?

Until they add a voice feature to my cell, it's pretty much texts


I use Google voice recognition to dictate my outgoing texts, and read my incoming texts aloud.
 
2012-12-05 05:24:06 AM

Smackledorfer: Sultan Of Herf: Egoy3k: Optimus Primate: Does it count when I use generic terms like "herb salad" when texting certain vendors?

We use the time honored method of discussing classic country and western singers such as Al Green and Hank Snow.

"Hey man Al's coming over tonight do you want to speak with him?"
"Yeah sure maybe for 5 or 10 minutes depending on the mood he is in."

Translation:

"I'm holding you want any?"
"Yes 5 or 10 depending on the price."

Unless your moving double digit pounds or kilos the govt doest really care. Hell these days many regular LE agencies arent going to waste thier time coming after you for a nickel or dime.

If they find it on you during a search, that may be a different story.

This.

Still, I see no reason why the government should be forcing a private business to hold your text info.

At the same time, I see now reason why anyone biatches about the government viewing your text info when the business both chooses to hold on to it and wants to give it away to the government.

A right to be secure in your papers does not include sending those papers all over the world via a private company who at no point agreed to keep that information private. You might as well demand that notes passed in class are private and that the teacher as a government agent is violating the 4th amendment by looking at it.

And of course has been said: if you are planning on doing something illegal or possibly illegal, you really ought to make it a point to be more careful. Anyone running around texting about their crimes gets very little sympathy from me.


Really, so now adult taxpayers have the government acting in parentis locus? What other rights and privileges do you want to sacrifice to return to those glory days of authoritarian rule with no recourse of your childhood? I'm a tax paying adult, I have an education and a family to care for. I don't require or want any organization acting in parentis locus for me.
 
2012-12-05 09:20:21 AM
I feel truly bad for whoever wold have to see my texts

I have beeen known to send random pics of my wedding berries

what has been seen....
 
2012-12-05 09:21:03 AM

Z-clipped: Great Janitor: Pista: Do people still send texts?

Until they add a voice feature to my cell, it's pretty much texts

I use Google voice recognition to dictate my outgoing texts, and read my incoming texts aloud.


I use the pre-Google version of GMail Tap.
 
2012-12-05 02:40:08 PM
Sprint and Boost Mobile don't store text content. Nextel (iDEN instead of CDMA network) might have the last seven days, maybe, if Jupiter and Mars aligned with the cell tower at precisely the time the text was sent. Virgin Mobile saves every text message, verbatim. Text detail (sending and receiving numbers, time and date) is available for all of these for the most recent 18 months, and longer for postpaid accounts, if the bills show call detail records.

For the record: Sprint doesn't keep copies of emails, pictures or videos sent or received.

To get any stored content, law enforcement must provide either a search warrant (for which they have convinced a judge there is probable cause) or a court order with attached probable cause statement.

Sprint hires people specifically to go over every legal demand they receive, and verify its validity before sending out anything - this includes exigent circumstances requests. This protects law enforcement as well as Sprint customers: if officers or agents use evidence they should never have been given, any evidence they gather using that bad evidence becomes 'fruit of the poisonous tree', and might get their entire case thrown out of court. (Power-tripping attorneys, cops and agents usually quit trying to bully their way past the law really, really fast, when they're reminded of that... ;-) )

To be fair to Verizon, I keep hearing that getting records from them is like pulling the teeth from a crocodile, and their response time is like molasses in January. (These would be the polite examples...) The people saying this might be blowing sunshine up my skirt, but I tend to believe they're at most embellishing the truth, a bit. But seriously, Verizon, if my bill's so much higher with you because you're paying storage on my text content, just delete it.
 
2012-12-05 02:51:05 PM

frepnog: I simply want the ability as the account holder to SEE every farking text sent on the website on a per-phone basis.

I have no idea why I can not.


Because most telecoms don't have the digital storage capacity to save the content of all the text messages people generate. To afford that, they'd have to up your bill by 300% or so. As an exercise: watch a group of teenagers, for a day. Then multiply that group's texts by the millions of teenagers on any given network, and add half that, again, for everyone else. Data storage will have to go through another couple of generations before the amount needed to save everyone's LULZ and other assorted remarks will fit in a building that the telecoms can afford, on top of the storage media itself. And the flip side of the coin is: if YOU can get your text message content, so can law enforcement. For now...if privacy erodes much further, divorce attorneys will be able to get their hands on it, too, as just one other scary scenario.
 
2012-12-05 02:56:02 PM

PJ-: My question is, how do they handle disposable cell phones that have either no name attached to it or a fake one attached to it?


They try to "follow the money" - either they ask for payment information hoping the criminal's an idiot and used a credit card, or they find out the phone was bought at Wal-Mart (ie), and go ask Wal-Mart for their security videos for that day. Or they know who's using it, already, or they ask for location data and hope there's a security camera showing someone on the phone in that area at the right time.
 
2012-12-05 03:06:40 PM

doczoidberg: Would it cool to have a job that would allow you to access all of those texts?

Oh, the nude pics you'd see!


Not from what I've heard...especially from people who had to work child porn cases, before Sprint quit saving pictures.
 
2012-12-05 08:00:59 PM
Every damn one you've ever made

All 2 of them? Oh noes!
 
2012-12-05 08:46:52 PM
... and if I texted, I'd give a s***.
 
2012-12-05 11:05:14 PM
So that's what happened to all the 976-numbers.

Eaten by the text-lords.
 
2012-12-06 11:29:47 AM

polyhedron collider: frepnog: I simply want the ability as the account holder to SEE every farking text sent on the website on a per-phone basis.

I have no idea why I can not.

Because most telecoms don't have the digital storage capacity to save the content of all the text messages people generate. To afford that, they'd have to up your bill by 300% or so. As an exercise: watch a group of teenagers, for a day. Then multiply that group's texts by the millions of teenagers on any given network, and add half that, again, for everyone else. Data storage will have to go through another couple of generations before the amount needed to save everyone's LULZ and other assorted remarks will fit in a building that the telecoms can afford, on top of the storage media itself. And the flip side of the coin is: if YOU can get your text message content, so can law enforcement. For now...if privacy erodes much further, divorce attorneys will be able to get their hands on it, too, as just one other scary scenario.


i guess i didn't think of the fact that giant volumes of text are likely produced each day by people crazytxting each other. makes more sense.
 
2012-12-07 12:26:33 AM

polyhedron collider: Because most telecoms don't have the digital storage capacity to save the content of all the text messages people generate. To afford that, they'd have to up your bill by 300% or so. As an exercise: watch a group of teenagers, for a day. Then multiply that group's texts by the millions of teenagers on any given network, and add half that, again, for everyone else. Data storage will have to go through another couple of generations before the amount needed to save everyone's LULZ and other assorted remarks will fit in a building that the telecoms can afford, on top of the storage media itself.


According to this site, there were 185 billion text messages sent in the United States in the month of June 2012. At 140 characters maximum, that works out to about 25 terabytes of messages per month. Add in plenty of overhead for indexing and metadata, and you might be looking at about a petabyte of data per year, for all US carriers combined.

You can setup a single petabyte server for about two million dollars, and probably get it in one server rack. You can probably setup a couple of replicated hot spares in geographically diverse locations, with full backups, using off-the-shelf components for under twenty million.

There are a lot of reasons that archiving every single text message sent in the United States would be an interesting technical challenge. Storage capacity would not be one of the challenges.
 
Displayed 19 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report