Cops to Congress: We need logs of Americans' text messages

More police state tactics. More "guilty until proven innocent". And just watch, more posts supporting this invasion of privacy by government.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...text-messages/

More police state tactics. More "guilty until proven innocent". And just watch, more posts supporting this invasion of privacy by government.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...text-messages/

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Free Citizen to Cops......Kiss my ass

Be afraid very afraid...

I think this statement is "more" correct as to the current situation:

"A review of court cases by CNET suggests that Justice Department document is out of date. While Sprint is listed as as not storing text message contents, the judge in Rhode Island noted that the company turned over "preserved text messages." And in an unrelated Connecticut case last year, a state judge noted that Sprint provided law enforcement with "text messages involving the phone numbers." "

and so is this statement more accurate, I believe, as to all providers (why only U.S. Cellular?):

"Over the past five years, U.S. Cellular has received more than 103,000 requests in the form of subpoenas, court orders, search warrants and letters regarding customers' phone accounts and usage."

Hey, I watch TV and they can get all the info they want and solve the case in less than and hour. Fact is stranger than fiction.

COG, are you really a lawyer? Because you don't seem to know shit about the law.

I deal with discovery of text and email data on a daily basis in a civil litigation context. The information is only available via subpoena. Which means that if there is some privacy issue at stake, the subpoena will be quashed and a protective order issued denying access to the information if a judge, after an evidentiary hearing, deems the subpoena to be invasive of some protected right. That whole due process thing...ya know?

Same goes for criminal work. Again, the issue of whether the police and prosecutors will have access to the information is decided by judge. The issue of whether it is admissible at trial is again, decided by a judge. You can't believe the kind of stupid incriminating shit that criminals text back and forth to each other about their criminal acts. It is a treasure trove from an evidentiary standpoint and it assists criminal prosecutions. Maybe you think that's a bad thing. I don't.

I think requiring it "just in case" is an invasion of privacy by government. I've used subpoenas to get text messages in a specific case for a specific purpose. Here the government wants the cell companies to keep the records on everyone, "just in case". I think that is unconstitutional. Maybe you don't think that is a bad thing. I do.

Gibbs dont need no damn subpoena

McGee !!!

on it boss !!

Would like to tag Abby...

Gibbs dont need no damn subpoena!! Originally Posted by CJ7

Neither does Special Agent "Whats-his-name" ... (You fill in the blank).

Would like to tag Abby... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

so would McGee ..


Im trending Ziva ..

so would McGee ..


Im trending Ziva .. Originally Posted by CJ7

I couldn't decide between the two of them. I would be forced to settle for a threesome.