Stop Using Cell Phones!!

[Varmit]

Just a few things that I would like to point out...

1.  The article isn't about the federal gov't using this technology, its about local law enforcement agencies using it.  Now maybe its just me, but when law enforcement officers break the law, in my opinion, then there isn't any law but what we make.  Not only that but given the rampant abuse of power by law enforcement agencies I don't think giving them more is a good idea.

2.  If you are going to use the agrument "so long as we are kept safe I don't mind giving up freedoms" then you shouldn't be opposed to an age limit on drivers liscences.  For example, no one under the age of 18 or over the age of 55 can have one, seeing as how these are the two primary groups most likely to cause accidents.  

3.  Who gets to decide what is "subversive"?  

4.  As far as "How can we blame the gov't for something we helped it to do?", thats simple.  Although We the People may have put these people in office it was with an understanding that they would not only uphold the law but follow it as well.

5.  As farr as ease dropping on a cell phone conversation, its kinda hard to hear both sides of the conversation without technological aid.  So that argument doesn't hold water.

6.  What other parts of the Constitution are you willing to shread in the name of safety?

[Wilma]

Somehow I feel compelled to defend my government.  I don't think that the government is spying on anyone without a reason.  I think that any means to information that will keep us safe is all right, legal or illegal.  For instance, let's take a supposition:

A billfold is found.  It is turned in to the local sheriff.  The sheriff opens the billfold to ascertain the owner.  A note falls out and open.  In picking up the note to return it to the billfold, he inadvertently reads it.  It says, "I have the guns.  Meet me at the school."

Now what should the sheriff do?  He is in possession of information that seems to indicate that an illegal act is about to take place.   Yet, he obtained this information by reading a note that was supposed to be private.  Can he legally take action on the basis of this note?

If he is my sheriff, he had darned well better take action, legal or not.  This is the same basis as the so-called spying on individuals.  I don't care if I am spied on if by so doing some dangerous enterprise is prevented.  I don't care if I am spied on because I am doing nothing illegal.  I don't care if the government is using illegal means to prevent more 9-11's from happening.  In the big picture the terrorists and criminals are using illegal means to carry on their projects.  Why shouldn't the government, which is supposed to be protecting us, use illegal means?  And how many of you would be shouting to High Heaven if the government failed to protect us?

When it comes to a choice, I will take my safety over my privacy any day.

[Varmit]

Safety over privacy??...really?  Then you don't have any objections to the new airport "naked" scanners?  And using your logic, police shouldn't have to obtain search warrants, or have a parent or advocate present when questioning minors?  Or better yet, strip searching minors?

[srkruzich]

Somehow I feel compelled to defend my government.  I don't think that the government is spying on anyone without a reason.  I think that any means to information that will keep us safe is all right, legal or illegal.  For instance, let's take a supposition:

A billfold is found.  It is turned in to the local sheriff.  The sheriff opens the billfold to ascertain the owner.  A note falls out and open.  In picking up the note to return it to the billfold, he inadvertently reads it.  It says, "I have the guns.  Meet me at the school."

This is not even in the same ball park.  the wallet scenario is not in the possession or in the persons home.  IT is on a public street.  A cell phone to be in use has to be in the persons possession or it cannot be used.

Now what should the sheriff do?  He is in possession of information that seems to indicate that an illegal act is about to take place.   Yet, he obtained this information by reading a note that was supposed to be private.  Can he legally take action on the basis of this note?

Yes as it was not secured by the owner. 

If he is my sheriff, he had darned well better take action, legal or not.  This is the same basis as the so-called spying on individuals.

Absolutely not.  IT isn't the same thing.   Like i said before, the wallet is not secured to begin with.  Papers, cellphones, cellphone contents are secured and in a persons possession. What is in your possession is yours and not subject to search or seizure without a warrant.

I don't care if I am spied on if by so doing some dangerous enterprise is prevented. 
I don't care if I am spied on because I am doing nothing illegal.

That isn't the point.  Our forefathers secured our liberty by protecting us with the 1 -10th amendments.  You know how important they are? They are SO IMPORTANT that they cannot in no shape or form or fashion be amended period.  THey are untouchable by anyone.
Your saying that you don't care if they search you unwarranted, is allowing them to totally violate the rule of law and when the government violates the law, then there is no law.

I don't care if the government is using illegal means to prevent more 9-11's from happening.  In the big picture the terrorists and criminals are using illegal means to carry on their projects.  Why shouldn't the government, which is supposed to be protecting us, use illegal means?  And how many of you would be shouting to High Heaven if the government failed to protect us?[/buote]
because its not the governments job to protect us by violating the constitution. THe police have no authority to protect citizens.  Their job is only to protect public property.  Sorry to burst your bubble there. the Law doen't even have to respond to your 911 call when someone breaks into your house and threatens you.  Your protection is YOUR responsibility, not the police officers responsibility.

When it comes to a choice, I will take my safety over my privacy any day.

well then you are one of those that Samuel Adams spoke of, may your master be kind to you.

[Wilma]

Am I ever glad that I am not paranoid.

[Diane Amberg]

I'm not so sure about paranoids but there sure are some neurotics on this site!

[Sarah]

You'd have to count me in with the neurotics then.  I agree with Steve and Varmit and Teresa.  The problem with allowing law enforcement, government be they local or federal to break laws, walk on freedoms and over step bounds is that they will keep taking more and more as people allow them.  How many freedoms must you lose before it matters to you?  Personally, I don't do anything in my house that is illegal, but what I do is private and my conversations are private and it's the principle of the matter.  This is supposed to be a free country and yet we're seeing those freedoms be trampled upon one by one and people don't care enough to do anything about it.  Sort of the toad in the pot of hot water thing.

[sixdogsmom]

Well ya'll, wire tapping is another thing altogether. But a cell phone transmission into the atmosphere does not belong to anybody. Just as if I spoke to you and was overheard by someone else. The third person is certainly not infringing on my right to privacy. There is a lot of paranoia here.

[jarhead]

If the cell phone transmission does not belong to anybody then why is against the law to use  a "little black box" to grab the sattalite waves that are in the atmosphere ? maybe i can get HBO, Playboy Channel and a bunch more goodies for free if they don't belong to anyone.

[Sarah]

Well ya'll, wire tapping is another thing altogether. But a cell phone transmission into the atmosphere does not belong to anybody. Just as if I spoke to you and was overheard by someone else. The third person is certainly not infringing on my right to privacy. There is a lot of paranoia here.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.