Feds Want to Warrantlessly Track Phones Bought with Fake Names

Feds Want to Warrantlessly Track Phones Bought with Fake Names

If the DOJ gets its way, it won't need a warrant to monitor people who buy cell phones and other electronic services using a fake name, according to a story in today's Wall Street Journal.

The DOJ is arguing that because a California man used a fake name when he bought a broadband card, service and a computer (and rented his apartment) he's not entitled to protection under the fourth amendment.

gizmoto.com

I just want to break down and weep four our nation. It is ridiculous how much our government has circumvented our rights, ignores all protections our Constitution, and legal system used to provide.

Seems silly to me to buy a phone in another name, but who cares? Presumption of innocince is the rule of law in the U.S.... or used to be.. you know "innocent until proven guilty" now it is presumption of guilt by these actions.

And this is just the tip of the iceburg. Googling ATS to see if this had been posted i found these articles:
Court allows warrantless cell location tracking: link
FBI : If we told you the truth about warrantless spying, you would sue: link
Check if NSA warrantless surveillance is looking at your IP traffic: link
Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Your Credit Cards in Real Time: link
DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail: link
Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches: link

It's overwhelming, and disgusting. And what can normal people like you and me do? I feel so overwhelmed and invaded. The government needs to stay the heck out of my and your business. They have no right or need to track us this way.

I am a disabled vet, I went into the Army to protect the freedoms that defined our country as great. Now... those freedoms are a distant memory. "Free-speach zones" laws making any protest illegal, second amendment assaults making constant headlines, illegal and warantless searches more and more..... on and on and on and on...

My head is spinning. Someone pinch me and wake me from this nightmare!!!

reply to post by pianopraze


My son just bought a pay as you go. He activated it on line using the name Fred Flintstone. I have a trac phone and I never did give a name or address, it was activated at the store I bought it.

reply to post by pianopraze

wake me from this nightmare!!!

Couldn't have said it any better. It's a shame what this country is/has turned out to be.

wow, (sigh) the system!! I've bought track phones and put them under different names for my own personal reasons, but to take away someones fourth amendment rights over this is absurd. He's still an Amerikan citizen isn't he?

**PINCH** Oh wait, you are awake. See this really is going on.
2

this has got to be one of the lamest arguments of ALL time

The government's argument is that it didn't need a warrant to locate Rigmaiden because he gave up his fourth ammendment rights and had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he used a fake name to rent and purchase his broadband card, service and computer.

when is the government or it's lapdogs going to learn that the 4th PROTECTS rights, you cannot "give up" rights asserted, especially prior to the illegal, unwarranted search.

this continuous, blatant attack on the Constitutional protections this citizen is supposed to be assured is actually more sickening to me than the potential spying activities.

our right to said privacy is not provided by the Constitution, it is guaranteed, hence it cannot be subverted by the DOJ or any other entity. will they ever learn?

the 4th does NOT say ... The right of the people (who provide their full, given names upon request) ... blah, blah, blah. .... geez these DOJ folks act like they have nothing BETTER to do ... wonder if they'd like a list?

But since you can't actually prove who's a fake name and who's not, this is actually just them trying to create a back door to spy on everybody because they couldn't do it legitimately.

Also, there are no exceptions clauses in the 4th amendment. It applies at all times, without fail.

My phone is in a company name(Nevada LLC) and the company went out of business three years ago.

They can track all they want and its going to be boring as for listening in that would be even more boring as i make calls about twice a month.

The other thing i don't get is how can they tell its a fake name. if its a name its a name and can not be fake unless its a name like "aurfvfsdtrj. dsghuyrfg.

If i signed up using the name john hill it would not be a fake name just not my name but then how could the government tell its fake.
Just Google john hill and you will find a lot of john hills out there. one site claims there are 5095 people named John Hill in the US so it is a real name.

What's a fake name?

Is a Tracfone fed by a pre-paid credit card or as-you-go minute cards a fake name? There's no name at all.

What about using voip with an ipod touch or PSP or any other wifi enabled pocket gizmo? No names there.

So the FBI only wants to tap phones registered to plans charged to Fakie McFake?

What a load of crap this is. I've come to expect no better from the alphabet agencies.

I prefer to buy phones that are preused that were activated in someone else's name, just not my own.

What then I wonder?

I mean, are they saying that because I use someone else's phone they can tap it?

Originally posted by hadriana
I prefer to buy phones that are preused that were activated in someone else's name, just not my own.

What then I wonder?

I mean, are they saying that because I use someone else's phone they can tap it?

edit on 15-2-2012 by hadriana because: (no reason given)

howdy hadriana,
they don't just wanna tap it but they are arguing that they can triangulate it's/your location without prior consent, without warrant and should they discover that you've been dishonest intentionally, they intend to prosecute based on information obtained, illegally.
does that make any more sense?

reply to post by pianopraze


Based on the title of your thread, I'm fine with that. I can't think of any really legitimate reasons to use a fake name. Personally, I think most of these "burner phones" should be outlawed completely.

reply to post by pianopraze


Very disturbing. In essence what this boils down to is at birth we are put in the system
(common law) with a birth certificate, creating a "person" if you will...a straw man. The system then
coerces the straw man to obtain a number (Social Security) and this is how they
strip away our sovereignty.

They yoke us with the name/number is to create a distinct "legal" person-entity,
a legal fiction who can then be stripped of God given rights, and drug through the system...
The courts, the financial sector, the taxation, etc.

Funny that without the straw man yoke they claim we are stipped of our rights,
when in reality its just the opposite. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont!

Originally posted by ANNED

The other thing i don't get is how can they tell its a fake name. if its a name its a name and can not be fake unless its a name like "aurfvfsdtrj. dsghuyrfg.

.

I hope you realise that in at least 5 galactic quadrants that could be translated as "your mother is a penguin and your teapot is possessed"!

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Based on the title of your thread, I'm fine with that. I can't think of any really legitimate reasons to use a fake name. Personally, I think most of these "burner phones" should be outlawed completely.

i'm curious, why would you take this stance ? (underlined part)

before cell phones, ppl used others house phones, corner pay phones, phones in a commercial establishment, and other random telephony ... all of it was "anonymous" usage ... what specifically is your issue with burner phones?

another curious question -- if all phones are tracked/tapped, are you going to be willing to "lend" it to anyone to make a call when you cannot be sure of the particulars of said call?
what if they called someone and the Feds came to you claiming you participated in terrorism?

if the government can casually apply the concept of "plausible deniability", shouldn't we?
and lastly, why would you willingly accept such an invasion of your privacy?

This actually ties in with a conversation myself and my better half had today. I was trying to explain how easy it is for the random stalker to find out tons of personal info on most people. Know a name and maybe who they hang out with? Facebook them. That might get you a phone number or email. Now its easy to find out tons more with a Google search. Let alone someone with a badge going to your bank, isp, telephone provider. Even all the convenience cards tie to email, phone, address. I think I scared her badly, granted that was my intention. It honestly scares me that just to have privacy we have to implement infosec and opsec procedures on a day to day basis. Even scarier is the fact most people give this info up without a second thought .