An Orwellian move by Obama's administration

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Not sure this how this falls under a 'search'. As you drive from O'Hare to Chicago there are facial recognition cameras that scan each passing vehicle. There are parking enforcement trucks (boot patrol) that scan license plates searching for scofflaws. There are even corner cameras that watch and record everything. These don't bother me. What bothers me is this administration's misguided concern over the rights of terrorists.

Ever hear of Echelon or Carnivore software that basically monitors the entire Internet including email. That is a warrant less search whether done by machine or human. IMO

accessing your phone records is a search, isn't it? as for cameras at traffic lights, they aren't using those (as far as i know) to track your movements, are they? catching you for running a red light isn't the same as following and tracking your travels from point to point.
what bothers me is just how far the govt will take this-imo it's as far as we allow them.

[SOREHOOF]

They want to mark ammo so it becomes more expensive and more scarce. I am no more likely to use my gun in the commission of a crime than you are to use your cellphone. We have to stick up for all of our constitutional rights or we will lose them ALL.

[hi_im_god]

i don't think there's any question this supreme court will come down on the side of both the bush and obama admin's that a retrospective search of phone records is constitutional.

the argument that no warrant is required to track who you might talk to tomorrow or where you were when you spoke to them is something else.

i'll make the same argument i made when the bush admin ignored fisa courts and tapped into all internet traffic without warrant.

you need to be comfortable not just that you trust the people making the decision today but that you trust whatever admin is in power 20 years from now.

and like randall i'm not concerned about anyone listening to my conversations.

but i do worry about someone that thinks they need to.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i don't think there's any question this supreme court will come down on the side of both the bush and obama admin's that a retrospective search of phone records is constitutional.

the argument that no warrant is required to track who you might talk to tomorrow or where you were when you spoke to them is something else.

i'll make the same argument i made when the bush admin ignored fisa courts and tapped into all internet traffic without warrant.

you need to be comfortable not just that you trust the people making the decision today but that you trust whatever admin is in power 20 years from now.

and like randall i'm not concerned about anyone listening to my conversations.

but i do worry about someone that thinks they need to.

i know what you mean. i have nothing to hide. i laugh when people ask 'what are you worried about? you have something to hide?' they just don't get it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

There was recently a string of bank robberies in Texas that was solved using this method. I don't know all the facts of the case. From my understanding, there was a string of bank robberies that were perpetrated by a group over the course of several months. The police had no leads but they knew the group was very well organized. They believed that the members of the group were communicating with cell phones during the course of the robberies

The police decided they would go to the phone companies for help. They obviously knew the dates of all the robberies so they got the records of all the cell-phone activity in the area of each bank on the respective dates that each bank was robbed.

Sure enough, the police found that on each day that a bank was robbed, the exact same cell phone numbers were calling each other right in the respective areas of each bank that was robbed, right at the exact times that the banks were robbed. They tracked down the numbers and they caught the guys.

I just realized that the story linked at the beginning of this thread talks about this very case.

I have no problem with the way this case was solved.