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.

(NBC News)   US Appeals court rules warrants not needed for phone records. Specifically, the decision holds that the fourth amendment doesn't apply to voluntary activities   (investigations.nbcnews.com) divider line 148
    More: Scary, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, Communications Act of 1934, telephone tapping, Appeals Court, location recording, polices  
•       •       •

1773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 06:04:14 AM
FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.
 
2013-07-31 06:08:58 AM
I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).
 
2013-07-31 07:49:29 AM
I'm not required to own a gun. Does that mean it isn't protected from searches or seizures?
 
2013-07-31 09:04:42 AM
By the same logic, the government doesn't require us to own a house either.
 
2013-07-31 09:06:13 AM

Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.


Well, since you're volunteering your information them I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've volunteered throughout their lives.
 
2013-07-31 09:07:45 AM

balki1867: By the same logic, the government doesn't require us to own a house either.


Or buy food, or walk down the street, or sit in your house completely still doing nothing...

But hey I guess I can just do my taxes 24/7 and keep my 4th Right.
 
2013-07-31 09:08:00 AM
I'm not required to own a unicycle.  Does that mean my unicycle is not protected against unlawful search and seizure?
 
2013-07-31 09:09:00 AM
wow.  That's some bullshiat.
 
2013-07-31 09:09:26 AM

Bontesla: Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.

Well, since you're volunteering your information them I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've volunteered throughout their lives.


Fml autocorrect.

Correction: Since they're volunteering their information then I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've been volunteering throughout their lives.
 
2013-07-31 09:09:48 AM
I'm sure that what the justices did to logic to arrive at that conclusion violates the UN Convention Against Torture.
 
2013-07-31 09:11:06 AM
This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.
 
2013-07-31 09:11:53 AM
I'm sure this is nothing to worry about while my guy/party is in charge.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:06 AM

give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.


Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:17 AM
Why don't you show the government your displeasure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_ 13 43728.html

Oh, that's right. You can't do that, either.

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans. Whatever small ones left you can find.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:49 AM

GoldSpider: I'm sure this is nothing to worry about while my guy/party is in charge.


*kicks back puffs a cigar*

Ahhhh the perks of never having my guy/party in charge.
 
2013-07-31 09:13:28 AM
That's a very...interesting...reason for their decision. Since everything someone does in public is voluntary, does that mean the government can claim data related to those activities without requiring a warrant? What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

/not sure what is covered under the 4th any more
//damn little now it appears
 
2013-07-31 09:14:01 AM
this sounds like a really really dumb ruling

So here is a question, do traditional land line switches store data? If so, are they considered any different when it comes to access to that data? Why?
 
2013-07-31 09:15:57 AM
A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?
 
2013-07-31 09:18:08 AM

give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.


Yeah, this Supreme court is terrible.
 
2013-07-31 09:19:05 AM

Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.


I haven't read the full record yet, but that's NOT what that quoted section says.

You 'volunteer' your cell cite in the request to the tower to make a call. You are essentially providing your carrier with information on where you are and who you'd like to talk to as a necessary part of making the call. You're sending that information to them on purpose. The content - that's different. That's not volunteered to the cell provider - just as the contents of a letter isn't volunteered to the government just because the addresses on the front ARE.
 
2013-07-31 09:20:16 AM
Seems like its based on a presumption that the government owns the phone system and pays my bills.
My activity on that phone is between me and the service provider (who tends to promise secure communications).
...But yea, bureaucrats are free to riffle through my data because GOVERNMENT.

/I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?
 
2013-07-31 09:21:00 AM
nobody is required to own a home either, we could all just live in the streets and sleep wherever is convenient...
 
2013-07-31 09:21:57 AM
I would like to point out that Judge Clement was first appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush, and nominated for the Fifth Circuit by George W. Bush.
 
2013-07-31 09:23:53 AM

Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?


"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!
 
2013-07-31 09:24:32 AM
"Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."
-FTA

Doesn't this go against the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
 
2013-07-31 09:25:40 AM

Flargan: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."
-FTA

Doesn't this go against the Telecommunications Act of 1996?


In what way?
 
2013-07-31 09:26:47 AM

way south: /I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?


I think the right question is "Who do they think the 4th amendment applies to?"
 
2013-07-31 09:28:56 AM

Flargan: way south: /I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?

I think the right question is "Who do they think the 4th amendment applies to?"


Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

Or why would you expect protection over the addresses on an envelope you mailed?
 
2013-07-31 09:34:31 AM

Deneb81: In what way?


In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom. 
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.
 
2013-07-31 09:37:12 AM

Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?


So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.
 
2013-07-31 09:41:32 AM

phenn: Why don't you show the government your displeasure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_ 13 43728.html

Oh, that's right. You can't do that, either.

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans. Whatever small ones left you can find.


That one might even be scarier... Taken together, you now have NO reasonable expectation to privacy, and can't peaceably assemble. How many core rights are left?
 
2013-07-31 09:42:26 AM

FarkedOver: give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.

Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.



Very True. It never pays to underestimate the power of human stupidity.
 
2013-07-31 09:42:56 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: In what way?

In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom. 
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.


1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.
 
2013-07-31 09:43:34 AM

Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?


You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:28 AM

Headso: Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.


No - footage is content. THAT you sent information and how much wouldn't be protected though.

For a provider to store your data you have to tell the provider:
A) accept the following data and
B) how much data to store

Not whats in it.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:32 AM

way south: Seems like its based on a presumption that the government owns the phone system and pays my bills.
My activity on that phone is between me and the service provider (who tends to promise secure communications).
...But yea, bureaucrats are free to riffle through my data because GOVERNMENT.

/I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?



In their house, office, or car, and on their phones.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:35 AM

Deneb81: Flargan: Deneb81: In what way?

In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom.
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.


Plus the "Except as required by law" qualifier in (c)(1).
 
2013-07-31 09:45:36 AM

Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.


I see a future where the police no longer need a warrant to enter the home that you voluntarily live in.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:56 AM

Mikey1969: That one might even be scarier... Taken together, you now have NO reasonable expectation to privacy, and can't peaceably assemble. How many core rights are left?


I'm a cynical expat, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

I honestly cannot think of one essential right that hasn't already been encroached or infringed. If someone else has something more positive to impart, let 'er rip. I'd love to be wrong on this one.
 
2013-07-31 09:46:31 AM

Deneb81: "For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!


EXACTLY what was said. You are supposedly "volunteering" this info, although most users don't KNOW about this, and the rest know that there is no way to turn it off. not only that, but just by having your phone turned on in your pocket, you are supposedly "volunteering" this info.

If you're too dense to see how this can be abused, I can only say that I'm glad that you don't know me...
 
2013-07-31 09:47:47 AM
But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!
 
2013-07-31 09:48:31 AM

neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!


Yes, they are.
 
2013-07-31 09:48:50 AM

Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.


No no no.

Info you have to volunteer to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.
 
2013-07-31 09:49:36 AM

Flargan: Except as required by law


This part voids all the rest because: REDACTED FISA RULING
 
2013-07-31 09:50:05 AM

Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!


When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.
 
2013-07-31 09:50:35 AM

FarkedOver: neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!

Yes, they are.


Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:04 AM

Deneb81: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?


We aren't really going to get into a back and forth over Customer propietary information are we?

Lets skip to the part where someone says "That information doesn't represent you, come from you, is not important to you, and doesn't belong to you" and the other says "I disagree". :)

Deneb81: Or why would you expect protection over the addresses on an envelope you mailed?

That "addresses on an envelope" analogy seems a little bit out of place.
I understand why you used it but I wonder why you didn't go with emails instead.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:05 AM
"By participating in a modern society, you agree to waive your constitutional rights."

I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers intended.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:27 AM

Deneb81: Headso: Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.

No - footage is content. THAT you sent information and how much wouldn't be protected though.

For a provider to store your data you have to tell the provider:
A) accept the following data and
B) how much data to store

Not whats in it.


Where you are seems like content...
 
2013-07-31 09:51:27 AM

Karac: When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.


Uncle Sam doesn't have to own it to ask it for records, you know.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report