- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
What do they accomplish that benefits individuals? Is their mission to benefit primarily government power (e.g., drug enforcement, gun ownership, political enemies, etc) and Wall St banksters (legal tender related 'crimes', bank robbery, etc)?
Totally agree. Why do we need:
FBI,
ATF,
DEA,
Federal Marshals,
CIA, and
NSA?
Can there really be this many disparate missions?
As for the CIA and NSA, one needs to be relegated to international espionage and be put with the State Department, while the other needs to be placed under jurisdiction of the FBI to deal with issues here in the United States - including those of foreign nationals on US soil.
Didn't think anyone was thinking back to 1967 on this subject.
any time you're not in your bunker with the damned
thing turned off and the battery removed. -- j
If it i legal for the FBI without a warrant, it must be ok for civilians to play around and similarly listen in. Could be fun.
However, are these spoof cell towers rebroadcasting? If so, you cant do that without a license.
Where one might be able to beat them is with your use agreement with your cell carrier. You are paying for your "secure" connection to your service providers cell tower. If the FBI is hijacking that towers service, then that might be the crime.
But, from the privacy angle, and needing a search warrant, I would have to agree, as the courts have ruled, and as the Constitution says, they can listen.
We don't have to like it. We can choose not to use cell phones.
On a side not, it is odd that cell signals are prevented from being received on commercial receivers (radios, ham equipment, etc.). One could also argue, if the gov't can listen, then we can as well, or, if we can't listen, then the gov't can't either.
The 4 th Amendment states "people shall be secure in their person, their houses, their papers, their effects..." Clearly that includes one's conversations.
The Constitution must be consistent with natural rights, Police cannot target you not individually or en masse, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you have broken the "law." Their only legit use of their power is in a very specific retaliatory force. Clearly this is the govt stealing your conversations in an act of force to be used against you when they want to target you.
The only sense one can make out of this expectation of privacy is for example, I am a robber and I'm in a bar and I talk about having robbed the 7 Eleven down the street. Police would have to coincidentally overhear me. Then it's not invalid to use in a court of law. There is no analogy between that scenario and these receptors.
I think that the real problem is the untargeted and intentionally deceptive nature of these tactics, because they treat anyone out in public as a potential offender - a presumption of guilt. I find them reprehensible.
Just like I can peer into your windows with a telescope.
I would agree, cell phone should be allowed to be encrypted. Just because something becomes wireless doesn't mean we should have to give up privacy across that transmission.
I don't know if that should apply to the ham band. but, since the cell towers use a leased frequency, those owners should be able to encrypt their use of those frequencies.
there will be a time when our internet connections will be wireless. But, should we have to pay a service to have encrypted transmissions? Why not have a public, encrypted broadcast. Just like Bitcoin is a public ledger, we should be able to have a public broadband...encrypted.
>> "people shall be secure in their person, their houses, their papers, their effects..."
Conversation, yes, in a private location. Transmitting it over the airwaves is not private.
I cannot enter your property. the airwaves are not your property.
>>...Constitution must be consistent with natural rights,
I have a right to listen to the wind. That cell phone is no different then you shouting across the street to a neighbor. How can I not hear that? Very different then me having to physically tap onto your phone line to listen to you.
I'm not evaluating the purpose, or intent of "eavesdropping". I'm only saying, in this regard, it's public.
The FCC rules say we can't encrypt broadcasts. Change that, and the FBI can listen to the non-sense buzz all they want, it won't matter.
Our laptops can be used to spy on us, instead of our television sets. And there are surveillance cameras everywhere.
Instead of the Thought Poolice, voice analysis can be performed to determine who is lying and who is not.
And instead of the Ministry of Love, the IRS is being used as a tool to suppress anyone and any actions that dare to challenge the government in general, and the political party and president in particular.
And this administration even has its own Ministry of Truth. It's called the Mainstream Media.