[Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?

[Art Deco]

A closer to home issue is whose emails, texts, twitters, etc are the
various local law enforcement agencies tracking on the internet without
warrants, and which ISPs are allowing/abetting them by cooperating.

w.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Donovan Arnold <
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Their new symbol should be the same eagle being stripped searched of
> all its feathers and another guy confiscating and making a copy of the key
> it is clutching so tightly, every time it tries to make another flight.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>   *From:* Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Art Deco <
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:52 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
> **
>  These are the guys intercepting international calls (and some say, all
> calls).
> http://www.nsa.gov/
>
> Ron Force**Moscow Idaho USA
>   *From:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
> **
>  I don't think the local police do tht much. But I think it is evidently
> clear the FBI and CIA do with international calls. They have hardware that
> listens to cell phone conversations over the airwaves looking for key words
> and phrases like your voice recognition software on your android. It
> isn't possible for the police to track every conversation, not to mention
> it would be boring and extremely expensive unless you were a suspect in a
> crime.
>
> I am more concerned about Google. They control phones, Internet searches,
> emails, personal passwords, credit and financial information, soon even
> your car, and do not have the same restrictions on the use of them that law
> enforcement and the government have. You legally consent to giving them
> that information when you use their software, just like you legally consent
> to a strip search when you enter an airport.
>
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>   *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:29 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Are the police tracking your calls?
>
>      *Are the police tracking your calls? *
> By Catherine Crump , Special to CNN
> updated 3:23 PM EDT, Tue May 22, 2012
>  CNN.com
>  Are the police tracking your calls?
>  [image: Whom you text and call and where you go can reveal a great deal
> about you, says Catherine Crump.]
> Whom you text and call and where you go can reveal a great deal about you,
> says Catherine Crump.
> Editor's note: Catherine Crump is a staff attorney with the American
> Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
> (CNN) -- Do you know how long your cell phone company keeps records of
> whom you text, who calls you or what places you have traveled? Do you know
> how often cell phone companies turn over this information to the police and
> whether they first ask the police to get a warrant based on probable cause?
> No, you don't. Not unless you work for a cell phone company or a law
> enforcement agency with a specialty in electronic surveillance. You aren't
> alone: Congress and the courts have no idea either.
> The little we do know is worrisome. The companies are not legally required
> to turn over your information simply because a police officer is curious
> about you. Yet wireless carriers sell this information to police all the
> time.
> As far as the cell phone companies are concerned, the less Americans know
> about it the better.
> Whom you text and call and where you go (tracked by your cell phone as
> long as it's on) can reveal a great deal about you. Your calling patterns
> can show which friends matter to you the most, and your travel patterns can
> reveal what political and religious meetings you attend and what doctors
> you visit. Over time, this data accumulates into a dossier portraying
> details of your life so intimate that you may not have thought of them
> yourself. In comparison with companies such as Facebook and Google, which
> collect, store and use our information in one way or another, cell phone
> companies are less transparent.
> U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, co-chairman of the Congressional Bipartisan
> Privacy Caucus, recently requested that cell phone companies disclose basic
> statistics on how our personal data is shared with the government. Let's
> hope the companies are forthcoming -- but don't hold your breath.
> To be sure, there can be legitimate reasons for law enforcement agents to
> track individuals' movements. For example, when officers can demonstrate to
> a judge that they have a good reason to believe that tracking will turn up
> evidence of a crime. But with a surveillance technique this powerful, the
> public has a strong interest in understanding how it is used to ensure that
> it is not abused. While the details of individual investigations can
> legitimately be kept secret, the public and our elected representatives
> have a right to know the policies in general so their wisdom can be debated.
> Cell phone companies have long concealed these facts, and they're fighting
> vigorously to keep it that way. In California, the cell phone industry
> recently opposed a bill that would have required companies to tell their
> customers how often and under what circumstances they turn over location
> information to the police, complaining that it would be "unduly burdensome."
> What little has come to light so far about the companies' practices does
> not paint a comforting picture. Addressing a surveillance industry
> conference in 2009, Sprint's electronic surveillance manager revealed that
> the company had received so many requests for location data that it set up
> a website where the police could conveniently access the information from
> the comfort of their desks. In just a 13-month period, he said, the company
> had provided law enforcement with 8 million individual location data
> points. Other than Sprint, we do not have even this type of basic
> information about the frequency of requests for any of the other cell phone
> companies.
> The poorly understood relationship between cell phone companies and police
> raises grave privacy concerns. Like the companies, law enforcement agencies
> have a strong incentive to keep what is actually happening a secret, lest
> the public find out and demand new legal protections. More than 10 years
> ago, the Justice Department convinced the House of Representatives to
> abandon legislation that would have required law enforcement agencies to
> compile similar statistics, arguing that it would turn "crime fighters into
> bookkeepers."
> The excessive secrecy has frustrated the ability of the American people to
> have an informed debate on just how much information police should have
> access to without judicial oversight or having to show probable cause. It
> has also prevented Congress and the courts from effectively addressing
> these intrusive surveillance powers. That is not how our system of
> government is supposed to work.
> It would not be difficult for the carriers to tell customers how their
> data is collected, stored and shared. In fact, an internal Justice
> Department document from 2010, dislodged through a public records request
> by the American Civil Liberties Union, showed the data retention policies
> of all major carriers on a single piece of paper. The phone companies have
> all created detailed handbooks for law enforcement agents describing their
> policies and prices charged for surveillance assistance, a few dated
> versions of which have seeped out onto the Internet.
> If the cell phone companies can provide this information to law
> enforcement agencies, they can and should provide basic information about
> their sharing of data with law enforcement to their customers, too. While
> law enforcement sometimes argues that making members of the public aware
> that cell phone companies can track them will make it more difficult to
> catch criminals, it is too late in the day for that argument now that cell
> phone tracking is a staple of television police procedurals.
> Why aren't these policies available on the companies' websites? With such
> information, consumers could vote with their wallets and punish those
> companies that don't protect privacy. Keeping their customers in the dark
> about surveillance is better for business, it seems.
> We pay the cell phone companies to provide us with a service, not keep
> tabs on us for the government. And yet the companies that now have access
> to some of our most private information refuse to reveal even the most
> basic facts about their policies? We deserve better.
> **
> w.**
>
>
> 4 5 1 , 5 6 0 , 5 3 1
>
> <http://www.formatdynamics.com/saving-paper-trees-ink-and-money/>
>
>
>  !   <http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/opinion/crump-cellphone-privacy/>
>  <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palousesince 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
> **
> =======================================================**List services
> made available by First Step Internet,**serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994.**              http://www.fsr.net**          mailto:
> Vision2020 at moscow.com**
> =======================================================****
> ****
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120523/4045f814/attachment-0001.html>