Published: Friday, June 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Now if we can just make it just as illegal for the likes of Google, Yahoo,
Amazon and the like to "watch" what you are doing on your phone and
computer - I think we would have something. But for some reason people just
don't get how intrusive these providers have become. That banner ad for
HH Photo on top of the DN page just hours hatter I had done a search of photo
equipment - not a coincidence. Your privacy is sold off to the highest bidder
every time you make a key stroke of phone click.We need boundaries
from both the government and private interest alike.
What are we trying to hide?I mean I get the civil liberties angle,
but what do we have on our phones that we need to hide from the police when we
are arrested?They already can't come up and say "give me
your phone" and start snooping. This is about when you are arrested for a
crime (and the phone may tell them what they need to know).I watch
First 48. It's not a crime drama. It's actual cases. And I
can't count the number of times where info on a suspect's cell phone
solved the case. And if they had to wait for a warrant it would have been too
late in some cases.Often the murderer claims he didn't know the
victim, but they see he was calling her dozens of times right before the murder.
Or they don't know who the victim went out to meet, so they look at the
victim's phone and the last call was the perpetrator. Who drug dealers
are calling, and who's calling them.. also good info.But I get
it... privacy needs to be protected. Not just from the Government.
The 4th Amendment states: "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
free people. We are not pawns to the government. The government works for
us.It doesn't matter whether we have anything to hide. The
government has no right to intrude on our privacy unless it has probable cause
to think that we have broken a law. Our computers, our cell phones, our
"day timers" are all private.
@UtahBlueDevilThat's the price of using free services. If you
don't like it you can always use privacy-based competitors like Tor,
DuckDuckGo, and Firefox (which has better plugins for privacy control). There
are also lots of mail clients, tunnels, spoofs, and other tools you can use to
hide your identity and internet use. You can root/jailbreak your phone and
remove applications and services you don't like, or even install custom
Operating Systems.The trade-off is reduced services, reduced user
friendliness, and reduced support, but those things cost money, which is paid by
tracking user data and selling it.@2 bitsPorn. Nude Selfies.
Credit Card information. Purchases. Bitcoins. Affairs. Embarrassing interests.
All of it legal. Stuff the police have no right to if it's not related to a
case. There is more information about a person on their phone these days than
there is if you searched their house, which requires a warrant as well.They can already get a warrant for phone records, so they will just have to
wait.Besides, I can just encrypt my phone anyhow, so it isn't
much use to them.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahMike -- We agree!So
tell me, Why do you continue to support GW Bush and the rest of the GOP
with their "Patriot Act", and Bush's NSA spy center in Draper,
Lets be clear, I don't have any problem with people obtaining the
information they need to do their job when they use the right process.....
simply to 2 Bits point.....all that data can be obtained, they just need to get
a warrant.But for example, an officer who pulls someone over for
doing 42 in a 35, has no need nor any right to know how much is in ones bank
account or where they ate lunch yesterday. But in valid criminal cases,
absolutely that information should be able to be gathered, with a warrent.Mukkake - I get what you are saying, and that is why I have one machine
that is "secure", where I do all my financial transactions, and my
connection and storage is encrypted. But going shopping for plane tickets
should not give Orbitz the right to place a cookie on my machine to watch
where-ever I go after I leave their site. The real spies in Utah at
the point of the mountain is not the NSA, but Adobe who watches every click,
every hover, every link you use. We do analytics on this data, I see it
I hope they can at least hold your phone while they work on getting the warrant
to search it. Otherwise it gives crooks a few hours or days to erase their
incoming and outgoing calls and their messages.
The wording of the 4th Amendment is of little comfort to ordinary people. Words
like "unreasonable" and "probable cause" removes the protection
from people who can't afford the cost of litigation and allows the rich and
powerful to buy favorable treatment by the law. The people who fear
the government intrusion but turn a blind eye on the intrusion of private
interests are most likely criminals wishing to avoid the law. Further there is little difference between telephone information and computers
and our e-mails, our shopping habits, books we read, media that we subscribe
to, and even the people be befriend.I do not believe that
information pertinent to the welfare of our nation or its people or its business
dealings should be hidden from public view. I object to the Tea Party hiding
its members and trying to be a public charity.
@2 bitsThe don't need your phone to access phone records and
SMS (texting) records. All of that is recorded by the phone provider anyhow.
Even if the phone is destroyed those record are still available, with a warrant
of course. So they have no reason to hold your phone if you're not in
custody.Ultra Bob:[The people who fear the government
intrusion but turn a blind eye on the intrusion of private interests are most
likely criminals wishing to avoid the law.]And it is absolutely
their civil right to do so. That's the entire point of the Bill of Rights,
to put the burden on the government; not the citizen.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments