It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Verizon/Apple Listening to, transcribing and saving voice mails in violation of my client's rights

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LanceCorvette

It may be more secure than you think, but the government will have access to it.

The transcription itself is being saved either on servers or on your phone, in either case it's probably not being stored in plain text. Apple for example started encrypting everything and using your passkey as the decryption key, so that they don't have any passwords stored.

In any event, a written record of what was said doesn't mean much because all calls get recorded. For the most part only metadata is scanned here but there have been cases where the government has gone after the content of a call. What this basically means is that they had just as much access to it as a sound file as they do now as a text file. The upside though, is that you can use the files metadata to your advantage and argue attorney/client privilege on any communications between the two of you so the transcript serves as a backup record that you had a conversation with your client. Since it's written, you could potentially even use the record of it to prove unlawful access to the voice record if someone makes the claim they overheard information between you and your client.

Remember that you can flip this around too, and use written records of voice communications to help your client enforce a contract. Typically it's hard to prove a verbal agreement, but if you now have a written transcript of it, it becomes much easier to prove.




posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I am surprised, that today...anyone would be surprised that this is occurring, that they are listening, they are collecting data, and that they are watching. It isn't hidden anymore. They admit it is being done for the sake of Security.

Everyone of course is in an up-roar that it is an invasion of their private lives. I think most people are in agreement of this.

What I have always thought about and said, which the OP points toward in their post: The big FEAR now is how it is going to be used moving forward.

Everything starts with GOOD INTENTIONS.

Who is going to get a-hold of the same technologies to do the watching and how could it or will it evolve and be manipulated in their favor for illegal practices ?

NSA Surveillance

Demo of NSA Surveillance Map


leolady



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

I just finished the ZH post. Basically it won't matter if I get Verizon/Apple to "turn off" the feature, they've been listening for a decade and will continue listening.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

I just read the zerohedge post that grey linked to above. Long story short, they've been listening in for decades. Now they're just showing us that, and probably charging us for it too.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I like the way you think. Not a fan of the gub listening in, but on a personal level this can be useful.

I'm actually involved in a dispute right now where the defendant's text to my client confirms that he lied about a contract. The transcripts can be used the same way.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
You updated to iOS 10

Sigh/

You just debunked your own thread when admitting that you hit "agree"

Now if you actually read the book 1,000 page long terms and services , then pointed out that it doesent say they can do this you'd have a point. But you didn't

You signed a contract without reading it. And you're a lawyer. Sad



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
You updated to iOS 10

Sigh/

You just debunked your own thread when admitting that you hit "agree"

Now if you actually read the book 1,000 page long terms and services , then pointed out that it doesent say they can do this you'd have a point. But you didn't

You signed a contract without reading it. And you're a lawyer. Sad


You make an interesting point. But did my client's agree to this?



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
You make an interesting point. But did my client's agree to this?


I don't think their agreement matters. I'm not a lawyer but I can think of a couple different justifications.

First, in most states plus federal law wiretap laws (which I could see this falling under) are 1 party consent. If you agreed on your phone, and you're aware of it then it doesn't really matter what the other party in the communication consents to.

In another justification, I would argue that as long as the call data isn't accessed without appropriate legal authorization it doesn't matter if the data exists purely as voice data or if it's voice plus text. What matters is who is getting access to the contents.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
a reply to: grey580

I just finished the ZH post. Basically it won't matter if I get Verizon/Apple to "turn off" the feature, they've been listening for a decade and will continue listening.


yeah. probably some secret court order they have on them.

start using encrypted email.

or some other encryption messaging software.

Maybe encrypted calling?

www.wired.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
You make an interesting point. But did my client's agree to this?


I don't think their agreement matters. I'm not a lawyer but I can think of a couple different justifications.

First, in most states plus federal law wiretap laws (which I could see this falling under) are 1 party consent. If you agreed on your phone, and you're aware of it then it doesn't really matter what the other party in the communication consents to.

In another justification, I would argue that as long as the call data isn't accessed without appropriate legal authorization it doesn't matter if the data exists purely as voice data or if it's voice plus text. What matters is who is getting access to the contents.


Except we're not talking wiretap/surreptitious recordings, we're talking about communications between a lawyer/client that are legally privileged from interceptions. I can't waive the attorney/client privilege on behalf of a client; only the client can do so.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
Except we're not talking wiretap/surreptitious recordings, we're talking about communications between a lawyer/client that are legally privileged from interceptions. I can't waive the attorney/client privilege on behalf of a client; only the client can do so.


What's the definition of interception? Is it making a copy of that communication? Is it making a copy of that communication in a specific format? Is a communication intercepted only if someone else hears it? Or is an inaccessible duplicate still interception?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LanceCorvette

Lance, as a lawyer you should have been giving us advice - not asking questions of us



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join