The Right To Privacy? Double Talk Violations Exist Everywhere

From Our Bill of Rights;  Fourth Amendment

IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We are told that Facebook and cloud computing and storage are not areas where expectations of privacy are found.  Yet, these sites all have privacy policies and you have to set up accounts to use them.  We are told that we are moving to a paperless society.  If electronic editions are the new paper, then why is it that the fourth amendment is not covering these new areas?  

  Are our leaders double talking us?  We are told that if we are in public, we need to have some form of identification.  According to the fourth amendment we do not.  It does not state that we need to be insecure in our persons, nor papers nor effects.  What constitutes a reasonable search of anyone on the streets?

  If privacy is not to be expected on the Internet, then why is hacking considered illegal?  All hackers are doing is gaining access to information that we are told is not private.  Or is it?  Is it that privacy only exists for governments and corporations?  People however are open to inspection at any time?

  How are we expected to understand what is expected of us unless we are no longer allowed to think and must be told what to think?  Or is this where we presently are and with a future that is much darker and grimmer for the mass population?

  If the government has the right to track you through your cell phone, then why don't you have the right to hack your cell phone for free usage?  

  Isn't a cell phone a personal effect or is it public property if it's a tracking device?  

  Why do websites have privacy policies yet put tracking cookies on your computer without your knowledge?

  Are copyrights and trademarks privacy policies?  

  If you can not enter a house without a search warrant, then how can you search a person without a search warrant on the streets or in their vehicles?

  The questions can forever be put out.  The main point is the double talk we are hit with daily.  One must watch with a careful eye all the double talking going on that violates our rights everyday and fight back against it.

Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review" target="_blank">Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review from Chuck Thompson

Here is an historical view on the right to privacy from the Harvard Law Review dated 1891.  So this document is over 100 years old and looks at this American right.

Related articles

• Restore the Fourth: Secure Your Privacy with 4GBs Free(dom)
• Metadata, the NSA, and the Fourth Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis of Collecting and Querying Call Records Databases
• Geo-Location Data. What They Know And Collect About You Via Your Mobile Devices
• New Maine law prohibits law enforcement from tracking cell phones
• New Hi-Tech Police Surveillance: The "StingRay" Cell Phone Spying Device
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

Federal court rules cops can warrantlessly track suspects via cellphone

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Geo-data received based on "reasonable grounds" phone was connected to a crime.

by Cyrus Farivar - Aug 14 2012, 8:30pm ED

In a 2-1 ruling, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled (PDF) that law enforcement has the right to obtain location data from a cellphone in order to track a suspect without a warrant. The case involves a man named Melvin Skinner, a newly convicted drug trafficker, who was part of a cross-country, large-scale drug operation organized by another man, James Michael West.

Skinner had appealed his many convictions: conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, aiding and abetting the attempt to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana. His attorneys argued that the government’s use of his GPS location information from his phone, which led to his arrest, constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"There is no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone," wrote Judge John Rogers, in the majority opinion. "If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal."

The Stored Communications Act strikes again

In January 2006, Christopher S. Shearer, another participant in the West marijuana operation, was stopped with $362,000 in cash. Shearer was on his way to deliver money on behalf of West to his marijuana supplier, Philip Apodaca, in Tucson, Arizona. Under questioning, DEA agents learned from Shearer how the West group conducted the drug trafficking operation. The agents found out that Apodaca would purchase prepaid cellphones under fictitious names and used pre-programmed contact information to orchestrate drug trafficking. Those phones were then discarded after a period of time.

However, by May and June 2006, law enforcement agents received authorization to intercept the communications of two phones established in West’s name. In an order written by a Tennessee federal magistrate judge, the prosecuting United States attorney received authorization to install a pen register, a trap and trace device, and to receive location data from the call’s origination and termination points, in addition to GPS and ping data from those phones.

Among other rationales, the judge cited the Stored Communications Act (also known as a 2703(d) order) as grounds to provide this order. Under that federal statute, authorities can’t receive the contents of electronic communication (what was said), but can find out where and to whom it was said. In contemporary cases within the last decade, law enforcement and judges have increasingly used this reasoning to obtain extensive location data that can effectively turn the phone into a tracking device. Such information previously would have required a much higher legal threshold—a probable cause-driven warrant.

Thanks to the intercepted calls between Shearer and West, law enforcement learned of the existence of a truck driver courier, known by the codename "Big Foot," who turned out to be Melvin Skinner. Based on the location data acquired from both phones, law enforcement agents were able to learn of Skinner’s location en route during his drug delivery from Arizona to Tennessee. Not surprisingly, he was promptly arrested at a rest stop near Abilene, Texas while driving a "motorhome filled with over 1,100 pounds of marijuana."

CLICK HERE for the rest of the story.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Gloucester, VA - Friends Can Share your Facebook Profile With Government, Court Rules

Image via CrunchBase

Federal investigators viewed the Facebook profile of an alleged gangster in the Bronx by asking his informant “friend” to show it to them. A judge ruled this was not unconstitutional because Facebook users can’t control what other people do with the information they post.
BY Jeff John Roberts

A federal judge has ruled that investigators can go through your Facebook profile if one of your friends gives them permission to do so. The decision, which is part of a New York City racketeering trial, comes as courts struggle to define privacy and civil liberties in the age of social media.

In an order issued on Friday, US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that accused gangster Melvin Colon can’t rely on the Fourth Amendment to suppress Facebook evidence that led to his indictment. Colon had argued that federal investigators violated his privacy by tapping into his profile through an informant who was one of this Facebook friends.

The informant’s Facebook friendship served to open an online window onto Colon’s alleged gangster life, revealing messages he posted about violent acts and threats to rival gang members. The government used this information to obtain a search warrant for the rest of Colon’s Facebook account. The Colon information is part of a larger investigation into crack-dealing and murder in the Bronx.

Judge Pauley III’s ruling is significant because it is the latest in a series of cases that defines how and when police can search social media.

CLICK HERE for the rest of the story.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.