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.

 

Restricted calls, internet threats, and police.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

AmberLeaf



Fed up and slightly innebriated he decided to go online and track the phone call. He is pretty tech savvy so I have no problem believing him.

This is where the story begins to break up. You cannot go online and track restricted numbers, no matter how "tech savvy" you claim to be. This is not possible, so the rest of the story is also fantasy.


Without rendering an opinion regarding the story itself it's actually pretty easy.

All one needs is a "friend" at the cell service provider who is in a position to provide that info. From there the rest is child's play....

The OP may have known that part of the story and chose not to share it at the request of his friend.

Remember, it's not *what* you know - it's *who* you know...




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I believe just like what happened to me, they make their presence known. Just so you know not to mess around.

That doesn't take "two weeks", it takes five minutes. They ring your door bell and run some spiel about something you know is BS like lost pets, or strange noises, whatever. After you shut the door you're in a panic because you know that was BS. But added to other strangeness you see a pattern.

Mision accomplished.

Now behave and stop makin crap up. Hoaxing is not allowed.



Since you are such an expert and know that the small town I live in has more than enough officers on duty to sit and "watch", then you obviously are a member of the local P.D.

If you would have done your homework and checked my profile you would have noticed that I do not hoax.

Thank you for your reply.

And I am flattered that you came and shared your "expert" opinion.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Riffrafter
 


that is not " tech savvy " , that is " its not what you know , but who you know that counts "

PS - in the UK its also a criminal offence - I CBA looking up the US laws in this regard - as it would invove both federal ans 2 states , and my legal skills are minimal



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


By type do you you mean someone who is logical and spots flaws in the story? Sorry but restricted numbers can't be traced by Joe public, you have zero info to use. If he did it tell us how, I've got a few I wish to trace.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





Text The police don't have the time or manpower to be following around people undercover for a phone call


But they have time to hang out at the local gas station for hours. How about coffee every morning at the local cafe.

I believe I stated that this is a small town. It is different than the big city. You can sit and listen to the scanner and nothing will go on for hours. They do not get hundreds or thousands of calls a day.

Also joe public can't find a number, but a group of "joe publics", I believe they call themselves anon, can get into any system they please and everybody cheers them on, doesn't even question how.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Noinden
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


By type do you you mean someone who is logical and spots flaws in the story? Sorry but restricted numbers can't be traced by Joe public, you have zero info to use. If he did it tell us how, I've got a few I wish to trace.


So by your logic you mean that since you don't know how, well nobody can.

When you bring logic into an equation, please be logical about it.

Thank you for your reply.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Since you are such an expert and know that the small town I live in has more than enough officers on duty to sit and "watch", then you obviously are a member of the local P.D.


Its those kind of outrageous claims you make that show your issues are contrived.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Police will not follow you around doing that type of investigation, they have no need too, and it does nothing but make the person a flight risk.

Undercover officers use surveillance when they want to catch someone “in the act” of committing a crime (like cash changing hands), or when they want to go up the food chain in a group to the top person involved. Something like you mention would be done behind the scenes via logs from the company and phone company, so what purpose would following him serve other then to tip him off and make him hide?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Since you are such an expert and know that the small town I live in has more than enough officers on duty to sit and "watch", then you obviously are a member of the local P.D.


Its those kind of outrageous claims you make that show your issues are contrived.


Out rageous claims?

It's called sarcasm. I was taking your post as that you know all procedures for all police departments in America.

That is why I said "expert opinion".

I believe I said "take it how you want to".

It's obvious you don't belive me.

Thats fine.

I'm not asking you to believe me.

I wanted to share this and quite frankly I knew it would turn out this way.

Notice the feel free to criticize text in the op.

Thank you for your input.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I believe I stated somewhere that I believe they want you to know "they" are watching.

If someone were illegally harrasing his phone and he illegally threatened them. Well who is at fault.

I believe we have entered a new, "take it easy man, were watching you era".

Intimidation goes a long way. He is really scared.

Scare tactics.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You must not have heard of the so-called "fusion centers." DHS has them scattered around the country in major cities, so that they have essentially turned every local LEO into junior Homeland Security officers.

No doubt they have access to NSA-acquired information in these fusion centers, which they can use to instruct local police in observation. In more and more cases, it appears that unlawfully obtained information is used to tip off local law enforcement who then in turn "stumble upon" evidence which can be used in court. Warrants are becoming a formality.

Think about it. The NSA itself confirmed that they share information on criminal activity with pertinent agencies, like the DEA. They are clearly doing more than just storing all this data. How could they possibly act on much of it, without utilizing the army of local cops?

I do not doubt the OP's story in the least. To me, posters who respond that this kind of thing never could happen are either ignorant sheeple, or have a vested interest in debunking such "rumors."



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

Police don't engage in stalking, it's counterproductive to tip their hand that a person is under investigation. When they are investigating someone they don't want that person to know they are under scrutiny, that just makes them 1) hide what they are doing 2)more likely to run or hide 3) destroy evidence.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist
 

You're misunderstanding how that all works.
Again, police don't “follow” people around to “intimidate” them, it only makes investigation harder. The DHS is linked into all police agencies, that was its entire purpose, to standardize and interlink communication between different agencies. That does not mean that “police” now turn into “spies” running around doing "undercover" and "intimidation" work however.

Believe me, I live in probably the worst “police state” state in the US (Florida), and I know a lot of police officers.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I think I understand the issue every bit as well as yourself. Our difference of opinion lies elsewhere.

I am sure you know some cops, and I do not doubt that they would back up your statements. I wish that I could believe that things have not changed much since 9/11, but things have changed.

The vast majority of us are still not on the radar, though we are all being passively monitored. You assume that, in the OP's story, the goal of law enforcement would be to gather legal evidence to build a case against the "suspect," thereby preventing any violent act he might attempt. You also assume that they would respect a person's right to privacy, and demonstrate prudence enough to avoid tipping him off to the surveillance. The revelations made in the past few years should be enough for you to hesitate in making these assumptions.

I don't think DHS officers in a fusion center would bother filling in a patrol officer on the details behind an order to check out a person of interest (both for legal reasons and for reasons of ego).
I doubt that anyone on a local level gets the full story on this sort of thing. Most cops look up to the DHS bad-asses and happily play whatever role they are given. In the patrol officer's mind, he is a small but vital cog in the machine that protects America. If you understand how massive that machine has become, and how technology has connected it in Orwellian fashion, the potential for abuse and disregard for Constitutional rights is obvious and prolific.

On a more cynical (and shamelessly paranoid) note, some would suggest that those pulling the levers of the machine would benefit from another violent outburst, using it to justify their own salaries and further erode our rights.
edit on 4-11-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-11-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: Grammatical perfection

edit on 4-11-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Have to add something, and my previous post already has an obnoxious number of edits.

Think of these fusion centers not as a magnifying glass, but a microscope. The NSA can only analyze so much data at a time, but when the find something that causes them to look more closely at a person, they can look extremely close.

In all likelihood, only a small percentage of local LEO's have ever been involved in something like the OP's story. Those who are involved probably never find out what is was about, because significant criminal activity is never observed. Some may never even realize that they are investigating anything but an "anonymous tip." I would bet that local police are getting a lot more of those since the fusion centers came about.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Spooky story. However:
'How did your friend trace a danged restricted number?' is not a trivial question in this scenario. Let me tell you something, consistently evading requests for details hinders a post's credibility far more than you probably realize. ...Simply admit to not knowing the answer.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

OpenMindedRealist
I don't think DHS officers in a fusion center would bother filling in a patrol officer on the details behind an order to check out a person of interest (both for legal reasons and for reasons of ego).
I doubt that anyone on a local level gets the full story on this sort of thing.

DHS wouldn't have a local officer investigate a person of interest other than to bring them in for formal questioning. If they wanted to do surveillance on someone it would be an alphabet agency, and you would have no idea you were under surveillance.


OpenMindedRealist
Most cops look up to the DHS bad-asses and happily play whatever role they are given.

Not from what I gather, many of them aren't much happier about what is going on then the rest of us are. They may see it as a necessary evil, and some might enjoy their expanded powers, but many also don't like it.


OpenMindedRealist
If you understand how massive that machine has become, and how technology has connected it in Orwellian fashion, the potential for abuse and disregard for Constitutional rights is obvious and prolific.

Believe me I do, I preach about it all the time. Heck look at my signature, that's only one small part of the intelligence database they are putting together as we speak.


OpenMindedRealist
In all likelihood, only a small percentage of local LEO's have ever been involved in something like the OP's story. Those who are involved probably never find out what is was about, because significant criminal activity is never observed.

A uniformed cops job in that would be to go take the person into custody and question them, not preform surveillance on them.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I understand and agree, for the most part. However I don't think they have enough alphabet agents to check out every single "lead" they get from the all-seeing-eye of the NSA.

It seems to me fusion centers are mostly a one-way flow of information. I can't imagine that local law enforcement could provide much intel that DHS does not already have access to. The only reason for the existence of these facilities (that I can imagine) is to utilize local LEO's to gather more information on persons-of-interest. They could simply be given an order to try and find some reason to arrest said person, giving them the legal right to search the home for nefarious activity.

Basically what I am trying to say is that fusion centers are about getting around the need for warrants and reasonable suspicion, in order to go after anyone who has already raised a red flag.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
No offense but your friend pretty much got what he deserved.

I could fire up the dialer next to me at work and hammer your phone line which I legally purchased as part of a lead list from a credit card company, debt collections, utility, insert something else here. I could also make that outbound caller ID , name or number, show up anyway I wanted from restricted to 1234567890. Their is a part to this equation you are not giving because if the only value you saw on your caller ID was restricted then their is no way your friend traced anything. Chances are he had digits to work with.

If I allowed you to see enough info on the CLID to trace me and you made threats like he did with geographic locations the first thing I would do is call the police. I am not sure what else you would expect.
edit on 2013pAmerica/Chicago3004ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

EllaMarina
Spooky story. However:
'How did your friend trace a danged restricted number?' is not a trivial question in this scenario. Let me tell you something, consistently evading requests for details hinders a post's credibility far more than you probably realize. ...Simply admit to not knowing the answer.


Let me tell you something.

I don't know how he did it. I believe I said I would ask him.

See it's not evading. It's as simple as I don't know.

What is so hard to understand about that?

I'm not hiding anything.

I really don't care that you don't believe me.

I didn't have to share this with anyone.

When I said " take it how you want to", that translates to believe me or not.

I don't care.

I am not a fly by night member of ATS. I visit almost every single day.

Besides I reread my entire post. Nowhere did I say I knew how he did it and i'm not telling. Besides after reading all of the negative "know it all" posts, it really doesn't matter how he did it. Everyone would call "bs" and come up with their "profesional" opinion on why i'm lying.

So whatever man.

I DON'T KNOW HOW HE DID IT.

I hope that clears it up for you.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join