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.

(Sun Sentinel)   Remember the good old days when the only organization tracking your cell phone calls was the NSA and not your local police department?   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 89
    More: Asinine, cell phones, assistant commissioner, stingrays, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, tracking, Broward Sheriff's Office  
•       •       •

4781 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 9:56 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-19 08:59:37 AM
No.  They seem able to tell when people look at porn on the internet so I suspect they have been tracking cellphones since there was such a thing.  It's not like a cellphone is anything but a computer controlled radio.  I suspect it's pretty easy to do.

I remember back when cordless phones were becoming really common how outraged people were when they found out that people can receive radio waves that you broadcast to the world.  There were laws passed making it illegal to listen, but how can you enforce that?  You could take a TV with an analogue tuner and tune in cordless phone frequencies so even if there was some way to confiscate all scanners it is nothing but symbolic.  You can't even detect someone who is just listening.

Even with all the encryption we have today, things aren't very different.  There isn't a cypher that can't be broken.
 
2014-05-19 09:24:41 AM
"Even the disclosure of the type of [surveillance] equipment police use would educate criminals on how to avoid police detection," said the Sunrise Police Department spokeswoman, officer Michelle Eddy

Somebody sure sounds like they think they're more important than the rest of us.

Any power given to the police will be abused, so it should be given in exceedingly sparing doses.
 
2014-05-19 09:38:39 AM

vpb: There isn't a cypher that can't be broken.


Technically, there is one that, if you follow the simple rules, can't be broken.  But as the recent NSA revelations have shown, it doesn't matter if you have the best cipher in the World if they can just pull the plaintext off your device.

Which is why the only truly secure implementation of the one time pad is the manual paper and pencil version.  And even then, it's only as secure as your measures to protect the keys and the plaintext.
 
2014-05-19 09:46:48 AM
Hey Subby, ever hear of a little thing called "CALEA"?  It was signed into law 20 years ago by Bill Clinton, and it requires that the telecommunications industry actively facilitate government wiretapping.  So don't go thinking this is something new.

StingRay-type devices have been around in one form or another pretty much since cell phone use became popular.
 
2014-05-19 09:57:23 AM
I assumed everyone already knew this.
 
2014-05-19 09:59:26 AM
Again?
 
2014-05-19 10:00:04 AM
I have one.  Turns out my neighbors think I'm listening to their calls.
 
2014-05-19 10:00:11 AM
www.jamspreader.com
 
2014-05-19 10:03:55 AM
The police won't tell us about their thing, therefore it does everything we can possibly conceive
 
2014-05-19 10:04:59 AM
In a very short time, these will be the Olde Days.
 
2014-05-19 10:09:16 AM
Can you remember what you were wearing the first time a cop friend told you to take the battery out of your cell phone to avoid being tracked or hacked?

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

I don't believe the toys were $150,000 back then though.

The piece reads like a stock price PR push for Harris.
 
2014-05-19 10:10:08 AM
dittybopper [TotalFark]
2014-05-19 09:46:48 AM


Hey Subby, ever hear of a little thing called "CALEA"? It was signed into law 20 years ago by Bill Clinton, and it requires that the telecommunications industry actively facilitate government wiretapping.

Remember when democrats supported privacy rights?


/// neither does anyone else.
 
2014-05-19 10:14:02 AM
Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.
 
2014-05-19 10:15:20 AM
So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?
 
2014-05-19 10:18:12 AM

vpb: There isn't a cypher that can't be broken.


Then what just the hell is Bob Dylan singing about, anyway?
 
2014-05-19 10:22:01 AM

fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?


Since the good really outweighs the bad then yeah. If they find missing kidnap victims and criminals by tracking their phones at the cost of getting a few giggles out of reading our sexts and listening in on mundane conversations then I'd say its worth it. Just dont communicate anything via phone that you wouldn't want them to find out and you're golden.
 
2014-05-19 10:22:06 AM

vudukungfu: vpb: There isn't a cypher that can't be broken.

Then what just the hell is Bob Dylan singing about, anyway?


Lol!
 
2014-05-19 10:23:39 AM

Billy Bathsalt: I have one.  Turns out my neighbors think I'm listening to their calls.


My father used to put on headphones and listen to calls from the neighborhood in his scanner. In particular, he'd listen to calls between some married guy and his ex wife, in which the guy would wax nostalgic about all the sexual things the ex wife used to do for him that his new wife wouldn't do. And there my father is the whole time, eavesdropping in his recliner in the middle of the living room, headphones on, like the town's perviest hermit.

One time when he wasn't wearing the headphones I heard the woman call a local take out restaurant and place an order to be delivered to her home. I listened carefully to what she ordered and memorized her address and phone number, and then about ten minutes later I called her, pretending to be a restaurant employee, and told her we weren't allowed to deliver to her address because of previous pranks we'd received from that address and phone number, and that she'd have to come pick it up. Of course the woman was irate, insisting that none of that had ever happened, and when she demanded to speak to the manager I told her that he was busy at that moment, but could she call back in a couple minutes and talk to him then?

Fine! she shouted and slammed down the phone, and I went and sat back down and waited. Sure enough, a few minutes later I heard her pick up and dial the restaurant and demand angrily to speak to the manager, who, amusingly, had just left. The woman went off on a furious tirade about how she's never given them any reason to not deliver her food and she shouldn't have to drive all the way up there and blah blah blah. When the girl at the restaurant could get a word in, and when she understood who she was talking to, she said, I have no idea what you're talking about, you're food's right here and it's about to go out with our driver. The woman insisted that a guy had called her and said they wouldn't deliver her food, and the girl insisted there weren't even any men working there that evening. The whole conversation ended with both of them completely confused, neither having any sort of idea what had happened. I was 16 or 17 at the time, and found it all completely hilarious...

/csb
 
2014-05-19 10:26:02 AM

Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.


So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.
 
2014-05-19 10:29:32 AM

peachpicker: Billy Bathsalt: I have one.  Turns out my neighbors think I'm listening to their calls.

My father used to put on headphones and listen to calls from the neighborhood in his scanner. In particular, he'd listen to calls between some married guy and his ex wife, in which the guy would wax nostalgic about all the sexual things the ex wife used to do for him that his new wife wouldn't do. And there my father is the whole time, eavesdropping in his recliner in the middle of the living room, headphones on, like the town's perviest hermit.

One time when he wasn't wearing the headphones I heard the woman call a local take out restaurant and place an order to be delivered to her home. I listened carefully to what she ordered and memorized her address and phone number, and then about ten minutes later I called her, pretending to be a restaurant employee, and told her we weren't allowed to deliver to her address because of previous pranks we'd received from that address and phone number, and that she'd have to come pick it up. Of course the woman was irate, insisting that none of that had ever happened, and when she demanded to speak to the manager I told her that he was busy at that moment, but could she call back in a couple minutes and talk to him then?

Fine! she shouted and slammed down the phone, and I went and sat back down and waited. Sure enough, a few minutes later I heard her pick up and dial the restaurant and demand angrily to speak to the manager, who, amusingly, had just left. The woman went off on a furious tirade about how she's never given them any reason to not deliver her food and she shouldn't have to drive all the way up there and blah blah blah. When the girl at the restaurant could get a word in, and when she understood who she was talking to, she said, I have no idea what you're talking about, you're food's right here and it's about to go out with our driver. The woman insisted that a guy had called her and said they wouldn't deliver her food, and the ...


Dick move.
 
2014-05-19 10:33:26 AM
Nothing new.  I had friend who was a serious phone phreak and had built an analog version of this in the mid 1980's.  Haven't seen him in twenty years, but it would not surprise me in the least if he didn't update the equipment as he went along.

It would be something that would require a warrant. I'm sure there have been a few defense attorneys that have challenged them over the years.
 
2014-05-19 10:34:37 AM

Dirty J1: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

Since the good really outweighs the bad then yeah. If they find missing kidnap victims and criminals by tracking their phones at the cost of getting a few giggles out of reading our sexts and listening in on mundane conversations then I'd say its worth it. Just dont communicate anything via phone that you wouldn't want them to find out and you're golden.


If they are doing that, they can damned well get a warrant.
 
2014-05-19 10:34:52 AM

peachpicker: Billy Bathsalt: I have one.  Turns out my neighbors think I'm listening to their calls.

My father used to put on headphones and listen to calls from the neighborhood in his scanner. In particular, he'd listen to calls between some married guy and his ex wife, in which the guy would wax nostalgic about all the sexual things the ex wife used to do for him that his new wife wouldn't do. And there my father is the whole time, eavesdropping in his recliner in the middle of the living room, headphones on, like the town's perviest hermit.

One time when he wasn't wearing the headphones I heard the woman call a local take out restaurant and place an order to be delivered to her home. I listened carefully to what she ordered and memorized her address and phone number, and then about ten minutes later I called her, pretending to be a restaurant employee, and told her we weren't allowed to deliver to her address because of previous pranks we'd received from that address and phone number, and that she'd have to come pick it up. Of course the woman was irate, insisting that none of that had ever happened, and when she demanded to speak to the manager I told her that he was busy at that moment, but could she call back in a couple minutes and talk to him then?

Fine! she shouted and slammed down the phone, and I went and sat back down and waited. Sure enough, a few minutes later I heard her pick up and dial the restaurant and demand angrily to speak to the manager, who, amusingly, had just left. The woman went off on a furious tirade about how she's never given them any reason to not deliver her food and she shouldn't have to drive all the way up there and blah blah blah. When the girl at the restaurant could get a word in, and when she understood who she was talking to, she said, I have no idea what you're talking about, you're food's right here and it's about to go out with our driver. The woman insisted that a guy had called her and said they wouldn't deliver her food, and the ...


Sounds like something I would have done as a teenager.
 
2014-05-19 10:36:40 AM

Dirty J1: Personally I have nothing to hide


Then you are part of the problem.

Bathing isn't illegal, and I have no reason to believe you cook meth in your bathtub while you bathe (or at all, for that matter). Would you want the cops to come to your home and watch you bathe just to make sure you aren't cooking meth while bathing?

Reading books and newspapers is legal. Would you like the cops to be looking over your shoulder while you read?
 
2014-05-19 10:36:51 AM
That has got to be boring, most of the time.
 
2014-05-19 10:37:08 AM

Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.


First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.
 
2014-05-19 10:41:21 AM

OnlyM3: Remember when democrats supported privacy rights?


In this instance, it is sadly true that both sides are indeed bad.
 
2014-05-19 10:42:44 AM
Is this FCC legal? Wavebands are not exactly public.
 
2014-05-19 10:44:39 AM

dittybopper: OnlyM3: Remember when democrats supported privacy rights?

In this instance, it is sadly true that both sides are indeed bad.


Dems never have paid more than
lip service to privacy. Both parties always push the same agenda.
 
2014-05-19 10:45:20 AM
Why are people acting like these departments, my own probably included, are juts firing up the cell tracker and listening in on everyone? We only use it when it is an applicable tool to the investigation at hand. If we're looking for a specific person, whose cell phone number we know, that we need to track down and we need a warrant to do so. That's it. A wiretap warrant would be needed separately to listen in on someone, that tracking is something else entirely.

You can be pretty sure that what we are provided as police is gonna be a couple of steps lower than what the Feds have. It's not a magic box.
 
2014-05-19 10:45:58 AM
Local cops are less and less members of the community, but instead becoming surveillance pawns.  The trend of cop cars looking like this says all you need to say:

secure.accountableauthority.com
 
2014-05-19 10:46:22 AM
Welcome to ObamaWorld citizen. Carry on.
 
2014-05-19 10:46:28 AM
filter

Is this FCC legal? Wavebands are not exactly public.


More than likely it isn't but if you don't like it, what are you hiding?
 
2014-05-19 10:46:50 AM

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


10/10 if trolling

If not trolling, step away from the Internet long enough to grow up and learn about real life.
 
2014-05-19 10:48:12 AM
Also, I'm fairly certain that spoofing a cell tower (which seems to be how these operate) is 100% illegal.  What would happen if the cell that has connected to this fake tower needed to make an emergency call?
 
2014-05-19 10:49:10 AM

neversubmit: That has got to be boring, most of the time.


Ever call up a business and have a machine route your call based upon your voice responses to questions?

Ever see an ad for software that allows you to speak and it transcribes (albeit somewhat imperfectly) what you said into written word?

The days of people having to sit there, hunched over with headphones on, transcribing every last word of a conversation are long over.  Software does the boring stuff for you.
 
2014-05-19 10:49:21 AM

fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?


I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.
 
2014-05-19 10:49:51 AM
Years ago, when cell phones transmitted analog signals. I hooked up an old B&W portable TV to a an old aerial antenna and would pick up cell calls on the TV's UHF tuner.  One day I listened in to a woman having a hysterical conversation with her sister about their mother's terminal cancer.  That was the last time I ever listened to anyone's phone conversation.

As for the police, I'm not surprised.  The cops in my town put together a list of every resident who sells on eBay....apparently they have solved all other crimes.
 
2014-05-19 10:51:34 AM

Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.


Yes they is.
 
2014-05-19 10:52:21 AM

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


They could just show the "evidence" that you might have conspired to murder that coworker -- simply not liking that person could be enough for that purpose, especially if that person is a photogenic white girl. Then there's the fact that you'd be tried by either 6 or 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty, and even if you didn't get convicted you'd still have an arrest on your record.

/the cops could also say that there's a non-zero chance that at some point in your lifetime you handled currency that was either used in a drug transaction or handled by someone who did buy or sell drugs at some point in their lifetime, and they'd be able to seize all your worldly possessions and sell it at auction unless you can prove beyond all doubt that that is not the case
//and if you're homeless or not white, they could just up and blow your brains out and call it "self-defense"
 
2014-05-19 10:54:00 AM

fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?


Freedom-loving America willingly deep-sixed privacy the minute it got scared.
 
2014-05-19 10:54:34 AM

Muta: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.


We *ALL* have something to hide from someone.

Whenever someone suggests that something like this is no big deal, as you seem to be, I like to ask them how they would feel if their worst nightmare of a government had the same capability to abuse as they wish.

Would you still feel the same way?
 
2014-05-19 10:55:40 AM

Wellon Dowd: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

Freedom-loving America willingly deep-sixed privacy the minute it got scared.


Sadly, this is 100% true.  And it's not the first time it's happened, either.
 
2014-05-19 10:55:45 AM

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


As someone who got harassed/investigated for a murder once for saying something barely negative about a guy who was later murdered, I think, assuming you aren't trolling, you don't know much about how crimes and conviction work.  People have been convicted for literally doing nothing.  Saying how much you hate your coworkers could absolutely get you convicted if you don't have good legal counsel.  People get convicted on circumstantial evidence quite often -- it's only in TV shows that they don't.  Police departments, especially smaller ones, are not supposed to leave cases open, and so if they don't have hard evidence against a particular individual, they will go with whatever evidence they have, however soft, against anyone they can.  People often get incredibly scared and plea out, even when they aren't guilty, which gets the case closed; sometimes these pleas even make sense for them, despite the fact they did nothing wrong.
 
2014-05-19 10:56:35 AM

SmellsLikePoo: Local cops are less and less members of the community, but instead becoming surveillance pawns.  The trend of cop cars looking like this says all you need to say:

[secure.accountableauthority.com image 800x1200]


I'm surprised the photographer (you?) wasn't arrested for taking a picture of that marked police car.

/Hallandale PD also has some squad cars with very low contrast markings
 
2014-05-19 10:56:43 AM

SmellsLikePoo: Also, I'm fairly certain that spoofing a cell tower (which seems to be how these operate) is 100% illegal.  What would happen if the cell that has connected to this fake tower needed to make an emergency call?


It is illegal, but the general answer to your question is the equipment that you can now buy or make relatively cheaply to do that can immediately forward emergency calls off to avoid committing additional felonies/getting people killed.
 
2014-05-19 10:57:58 AM

dittybopper: Muta: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.

We *ALL* have something to hide from someone.

Whenever someone suggests that something like this is no big deal, as you seem to be, I like to ask them how they would feel if their worst nightmare of a government had the same capability to abuse as they wish.

Would you still feel the same way?


This is America.
 
2014-05-19 11:02:58 AM

dittybopper: Muta: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.

We *ALL* have something to hide from someone.

Whenever someone suggests that something like this is no big deal, as you seem to be, I like to ask them how they would feel if their worst nightmare of a government had the same capability to abuse as they wish.

Would you still feel the same way?


The general problem is people don't consider the implications.  I've known a lot of people who do the "I don't have anything to hide" routine who I know enough about when I start asking them questions, they clam up.  People don't realize that a lot of the things that people do and don't think about are illegal, and some are even felonies.

When I get that's "nothing to hide" routine, I ask people if they've ever seen any porn on their screen where a girl looked like she may possibly have been under 18 (even if they didn't click on it), whether they are OK with the contents of their calls, texts, or e-mails not to their spouse becoming public, and if they are truly goody two shoes, whether they're OK with medical information about them or just the content of their work e-mails being out there.

I've yet to find anyone, when you explain all the consequences, who doesn't get creeped out by the possibilities really quickly.
 
2014-05-19 11:04:07 AM

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


Judge: Why are you admitting these recordings?
Prosecutor: Goes to motive, your honor.
 
2014-05-19 11:05:30 AM
FitzShivering:
As someone who got harassed/inves ...

So that's justice nowadays in America. How is it the land of the free exactly, because I just don't get it.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report