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.

 

Court Says Cops Can Track GPS Signal Data On Pay-As-You-Go Phones Without A Warrant

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by billy197300
 


There are plenty of other means at the disposal of law enforcement to track down and find him. They may not be as efficient or convenient as turning on the GPS locator in his phone. But they do exist and can be used without violating anyone's civil liberties.
edit on 15-8-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by billy197300
 


There are plenty of other means at the disposal of law enforcement to track down and find him. They may not be as efficient or convenient as turning on the GPS locator in his phone. But they do exist and can be used without violating anyone's civil liberties.
edit on 15-8-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)


agreed, and if they are too lazy or not smart enough, fine, build a case and take it to a judge for a warrant. That is the point, if you have enough evidence against, the judge will authorize it.

This is the whole reason behind checks and balances between the branches........in addition this is established to protect the individual from overzealous law enforcement with a grudge
edit on 15-8-2012 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Another aspect of this and a smokescreen effect will rollover to the "war on drugs" - as most drug dealers tend to use throwaway phones - and change them over frequently. Opening this avenue for local law enforcement will give them a quicker way to collect evidence ( digital - texts and phone calls ) and to also track suspects.

Or so it would seem to me upon reflection.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Another aspect of this and a smokescreen effect will rollover to the "war on drugs" - as most drug dealers tend to use throwaway phones - and change them over frequently. Opening this avenue for local law enforcement will give them a quicker way to collect evidence ( digital - texts and phone calls ) and to also track suspects.

Or so it would seem to me upon reflection.

~Heff


Okay, smoke screen....meaning Sun Tzu.....make your enemy think you are strong when you are weak and close when you are far.....Okay, I can totally agree with that point, because this might be a ploy of the law enforcement organizations to knee cap where they are weak.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Here is the issue that concerns me.

If a person is the suspect in an investigation (get off the domestic violence
) then the law enforcement agency responsible for that investigation have a file. They have more than enough, normally speaking, to present to a judge to open the door of probably cause. This would allow them to tap, track, or follow, with little more effort than a quick call.

The problem that I have, yes, drop phones are cheap and disposable, and drug runners probably swap frequently. However, with the argument that they swap so fast it doesn't allow for time to gain a warrant, isn't logical. The amount of time required to figure out tech specs on the phone, they could have easily set a warrant in motion to tap.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pointr97
 


My issue here is they can't place GPS on your car or tap your phone because you have an expectation of privacy, in both instances. But what this ruling does is by definition is says that with a pre-paid phone you do not have that same expectation of privacy. Why? Is it not still your phone? What makes it any different than a contract phone? What makes it any different than your car? It is still yours you still paid a provider for the service. This brushes aside your expectation of privacy as it pertains to the GPS locator built into your phone, by extension it also brushes aside any expectation of privacy as to the content and usage of that phone.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by pointr97
 


My issue here is they can't place GPS on your car or tap your phone because you have an expectation of privacy, in both instances. But what this ruling does is by definition is says that with a pre-paid phone you do not have that same expectation of privacy. Why? Is it not still your phone? What makes it any different than a contract phone? What makes it any different than your car? It is still yours you still paid a provider for the service. This brushes aside your expectation of privacy as it pertains to the GPS locator built into your phone, by extension it also brushes aside any expectation of privacy as to the content and usage of that phone.


agreed in total.....re-read again:




"Otherwise, dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent. A getaway car could not be identified and followed based on the license plate number if the driver reasonably thought he had gotten away unseen. The recent nature of cell phone location technology does not change this. If it did, then technology would help criminals but not the police."


Let us pick this apart, the dog picked up the sent from something left behind. The 'getaway' car was reported because a witness observed it or it would not be identifiable by any nature. There is no way a random observer could have the ability to witness 'bob' 20 feet away and identify the details within that phone which would be required to track it. Sent=abandoned...getaway car=3rd party observer (live or camera),.....cell phone, not a chance.
edit on 15-8-2012 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The article was not detailed enough for me to make a decision on this.

HOW exactly did they get this guys phone number? I mean, how did they connect the phone he was using, with the guy, knowing what the guy was using?

They cannot plant a GPS tracker on you, listen to your phone calls, read your mail, etc without a warrant. How is that ANY different than tracking you via your GPS?

The article's mention of the show "The Wire" doesn't make sense. In "The Wire" they wanted to tap the phones so that they could HEAR what the people were saying (setting up re-ups, murders, etc) or later in the series view the text messaged picture being sent to know when drug deals were going on. They already knew WHERE the people were, they just wanted to know what they were saying.

From what the article says, the police are NOT doing that. They used the phone to simply track the person using it via GPS. But they did not explain where they got the number of the phone in the first place. How did they know that the phone's user was trafficking drugs?

Like I said they didn't give enough information here to figure out what's going on. The detective's comparison to using tracking dogs, and following a getaway car is a bunch of BS. A tracking dog is tracking a person who is KNOWN to have been at a location. Following a getaway car, again, is following the car used to escape a crime. They knew the car was used as a getaway car, therefore they follow it.

So I ask one more time, how did the cops know that the phone's owner was trafficking drugs? Did they not know who this person was at all? Just some mystery drug runner they found via GPS? If so, how did they know he was a drug runner, if they didn't know who he was? If they DID know who he was, why did they need GPS, when they could have simply followed him?

This whole thing just doesn't make any sense to me.


In theory, he could've just been another person who didn't want the hassle of signing a two-year contract with a wireless carrier.


This is what bothers me. Where did they get his number from? Does anyone who uses a prepaid phone now have to worry about the DEA knocking down their front door just because they used a pay as you go phone? Some people can't get contract phones because of credit. Some people are also REQUIRED to have cell phones for work. So these people just have to deal with being arrested for having a prepaid phone every now and again?

HOW DID THEY KNOW HE WAS A DRUG SMUGGLER? Where did they get his number from? THESE are the questions the article should have mentioned, as they are the most important part of the whole thing.
edit on 16-8-2012 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Since that article was so crappy and didn't give important details I found another one HERE that goes more into detail.

After reading that article, I've come to the conclusion that not only is the court's decision wrong, but the man's phone number was obtained illegally in the first place. Why? I'll explain.

The DEA did not know who this man was. They never saw him, heard from him, or anything. My guess, is they ILLEGALLY did a phone tap on someone else involved in drug smuggling. With this illegal wire tap, they listened into phone calls, and heard the person talking to the drug mule. NOW they have the guy's phone number. NOW they track the mule down by GPS.

So why am I so sure that the phone tap that gave the DEA this man's phone number was illegal in the first place?

Simple. Because if the DEA obtained this man's phone number LEGALLY they could have very easily got a warrant to track the man's phone. To get a warrant they would have to tell a judge HOW the phone number was obtained. They can't do that here though, because the phone number was obtained illegally. Therefore they just went ahead and tracked the phone via GPS with no warrant, so that they would never have to say WHERE the phone number came from.

Now the comparison to "The Wire" makes perfect sense. In the show they illegally tapped a guy's phone, and then attributed the evidence from the tap to a confidential informant in order to get a search warrant. Their mistake was using the illegally gained information to get a warrant, instead of using the illegally gained information directly to find the guy.

The DEA was more clever. They illegally obtained this guy's phone number, then tracked him without a warrant, so they wouldn't have to disclose where they got his phone number from. If they got his phone number via legal means there is ZERO reason to not simply get a warrant for the GPS tracking.

Not only is this a rights violation, but it's evidence of even MORE rights violations AND a coverup.

Dirty, nasty, evil DEA folks. People finally realize you can't trust any governmental agencies? Bunch of crooks. At least the criminals don't lie and say they are the good guys.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join