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 26
    More: Asinine, cell phones, assistant commissioner, stingrays, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, tracking, Broward Sheriff's Office  
•       •       •

4800 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 9:56 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-19 09:24:41 AM  
4 votes:
"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 10:55:45 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:54:00 AM  
3 votes:

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


Freedom-loving America willingly deep-sixed privacy the minute it got scared.
2014-05-19 01:46:58 PM  
2 votes:

Noticeably F.A.T.: You'd think, wouldn't you? Let's hope you never have to find out how wrong you are personally, because you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you.


My wife watches a bunch of those Dateline NBC and 20/20 type shows where they review crimes.  It is amazing how some people get convicted with evidence that directly contradicts the story the prosecutor is selling.  Some of it is on par with the type of prosecution that was done on Amanda Knox.

//They don't care about justice, they care about conviction stats.
2014-05-19 11:02:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:54:34 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:45:58 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:38:39 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:13:38 PM  
1 votes:

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: 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.

Doesn't matter. "We ...


No, the term is "Beyond a "reasonable" doubt, and we all know that Americans have a big difference in what they consider "reasonable."
2014-05-19 02:33:01 PM  
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com

This surveillance crap really gets my goat.
2014-05-19 01:00:18 PM  
1 votes:

Dirty J1: Fingerprints, weapons, footprints, DNA samples..... Hard to make a valid case without any of that.


You'd think, wouldn't you? Let's hope you never have to find out how wrong you are personally, because you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you.
2014-05-19 12:09:50 PM  
1 votes:

Another Government Employee: Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.


Not all cops are smart.

And sometimes even smart cops can make mistakes and latch on to a theory that they just can't let go of, even after it's been shown to be wrong.
2014-05-19 12:00:46 PM  
1 votes:

Muta: 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.


Yes, America, which is a nation for which privacy against unwarranted government intrusion is enshrined in the founding document.

But screw that, because TURRISTS!
2014-05-19 11:32:05 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Doesn't matter. "We will now present the motive of the accused, here is him complaining about it!" Also they'll portray you as a very angry person by every clip of you ever swearing on your phone. And bear in mind: conviction is determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, or who want to be important.
2014-05-19 11:18:15 AM  
1 votes:

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.


The slope. It's slippery.
2014-05-19 10:55:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:46:28 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:36:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:34:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:15:20 AM  
1 votes:
So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?
2014-05-19 10:00:11 AM  
1 votes:
www.jamspreader.com
2014-05-19 09:57:23 AM  
1 votes:
I assumed everyone already knew this.
2014-05-19 09:46:48 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report