Time to ditch cell phones
9-2? This needs to be smacked down by the Supreme Court. It's not your data. That's all the definition I need to say "you can't have it without a warrant".
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
It's just like talking on a CB/Ham radio, that propagation is a free transmission, you have ZERO expectation of privacy.
That doesn't mean I like it.
The voice conversation is another story. But once you open the window and shout "get off my lawn", it's public.
As for the warrant, we don't know what it said. The argument is "low burden of proof". For who, the owner of the cell-phone, or MetroPCS? they both own that data. How much responsibility does the provider have to protect that data. It's no longer solely your data.
It sucks, but until you have a secure peer-to-peer communication, this information is not protected.
As soon as the information can be tied to a single device, it's not longer public data - it's private data and subject to the Fourth Amendment.
And with respect to your Ham/CB comment, I'm a licensed Amateur Radio Operator and by virtue of our licensing, we _know_ that all our communications are public. Not so with telephones - even cell phones - because there is an expectation of privacy and the courts have routinely upheld this.
I don't care what the Federal Government is doing, if it asks for data from a private individual or corporation, it needs a warrant. That should be the standard.
phones/cellphones - conversation is private. No one tapped that.
Is metadata "conversation". I say no. It is means to make a connection to initiate a conversation.
Yes, it is protected, but does it have the same level of privacy being that it is owned by two parties?
The question comes down to the warrant. There was a warrant.
It's slippery.
I was going to upgrade my license to General class this winter but got tied down. New exams come out in June/July, so, I guess I'm waiting til later this summer.
73's