No Expectation of Privacy

All your information has been documented. We see that you have an issue with your freely elected government and now you must wait for 10 minutes and the local authorities will pick you up for questioning. have a nice day.

 

If you don't want your location known you must remove the battery from your cell phone.

If your car has onstar installed you can be tracked even if you don't subscribe. I suspect your engine can be shut down by the company while you are driving.

 

As long as it is understood that we are being snooped it should not matter. Allah Akbar! Take that, federal snooper!

 

Wow What a let down to the liberals. Their savior has betrayed them.

 

NAZI Germany's Gestapo would be envious!!!!! No more paper work---get in---out---we have our man!!!! Personally, though, if I were a Gestapo agent---I'd think that a cell phone would take all the fun out of snooping and nosein' around!!!!

 

Whassup wi' dis?


I could have sworn Obama, as a senator, was against electronic eavesdropping.


Oh!!!! I get it!!!

It's OK to snoop on law abiding citizens, but not foreign terrorists.

Silly me. Whatever was I thinking!!!!!

 

There is no constitutional right to privacy except in one's home. All the other sorts of privacy stem from case law and no one on this list except myself seems to "believe in" case law.

 

And you say that you are a libertarian?

 

Say what?

I don't have any secrets except for inside my house and private conversations outside. I'm not afraid to use my real name even on this list. Anything on the web and anything that goes over a cell phone can be snooped by anyone.

I don't have to like the laws. As a Christian and a Libertarian, I only have to live and work within their framework.

 

You are largely correct. MOST of the folks here don't think case law has anything to do with the law of the land. That fact shows ignorance of our civil government.

 

No, he's not.

He largely follows the union party line (Democrat). He also believes all of our tax/income info should be published in newspapers (not sure what you'd call that, besides "ridiculous.")

My view is this: When I encounter a "gray area," I default to individual freedom, and smaller gov't. That's why the Patriot Act disturbed me. That's one of many reasons this legislation is, quite frankly, stupid.

But, unfortunately...those of us who value individual freedom and liberty are quickly becoming the minority. Not to mention that many folks are willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty if it allows them to take a "pot shot" at the "enemy party."

Sad, it is.

 

It's easy to say now that you, I, we don't have any secrets because we are still a relatively free society, but history has taught us that fact can change with an election, a law passed, a takeover. Once one of our behaviors (like going to church, praying, criticizing the President) is outlawed, we might well have a secret and want some personal discretion in who we share it with.

 

I disagree and so do others:

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000757.html

The right to keep mail private is in the original constitution. At the time there were no cell phones, internet, etc. That the original constitution specifically says that mail should be kept private, and that mail was a primary means of communication, says quite a lot.

 

Very good insight.

Additionally there are many conversations which concern matters which are not illegal but require privacy such as business trade secrets.

 

Interesting. It should be a simple to amend title 18 if Congress cares.

How dare anyone tell me which political party I (may) support <G>.

 

Amend Title 18 how - specifically?

What are you talking about?

You know there are no mind readers here.

 

See posts # 10 and 12 above. Posters claim that I am not a Libertarian.

See http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000757.html on this page. It notes that title 18 forbids govt snooping in people's mail (to bad that this has been universally ignored) and that the intent of the section in title 18 should be, by case law, transferred and applied to all forms of electronic communication.

Well, there has been specific legislations prohibiting repeating private conversations by radio transmissions and this has been expanded by specifically banning the manufacture of receivers that may be tuned to cell phone frequencies.

But the OP was about using cell phone signals for locating the phone by triangulation. For years police have planted radio beacons on suspicious cars and using the signal for triangulating the position of a car. Far as I know there has never been a legal decision against this practice and thus by inference using cell phone signals for the same purpose should be constitutional.