They know where you are.......

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The text of the DOI reads UNalienable, however, both words mean the same thing

I stand corrected.

 

[eliza61]

Hey Guys,
Oprahs show today has people taking a pledge to not text/talk while you drive. So for a short period of time, big brother can't track you. I think it's a repeat though.

Just trying to bring a little humor to the debate.

 

[shrubber]

I believe her point is that our government did absolutely nothing about it when they were formed.

While they couldn't change the past, they had every opportunity to change the future but opted not to out of fear of disagreement.

But that is not entirely true,
The topic of slavery and the debate was strong during the drafting of the Constitution. Compromises were made to get the thing ratified.
The largest, found in section 9 of Article I of the Constitution, stipulated that Congress would not be able to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808, although they may tax them. This helped to counter Southern fears that Congress' power to regulate commerce would be used to abolish slavery. This provision could not be changed by amendment, thus, giving the slave trade a 20 year reprieve.

They could not ban it outright and get it passed, so they put a 20 year moratorium, until they could.
Jefferson wrote a bill in about 1805 banning slave trade all together...!

 

[shrubber]

Again, the knowledge of your celphone's location does not violate the 4th Amendment. Nothings is being searched or seized.

My effects and property are being searched

 

[eliza61]

But that is not entirely true,
The topic of slavery and the debate was strong during the drafting of the Constitution. Compromises were made to get the thing ratified.
The largest, found in section 9 of Article I of the Constitution, stipulated that Congress would not be able to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808, although they may tax them. This helped to counter Southern fears that Congress' power to regulate commerce would be used to abolish slavery. This provision could not be changed by amendment, thus, giving the slave trade a 20 year reprieve.

They could not ban it outright and get it passed, so they put a 20 year moratorium, until they could.
Jefferson wrote a bill in about 1805 banning slave trade all together...!

but he did it while owning slaves so how serious could he have been.

http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/biography.html
Jefferson inherited slaves from both his father and father-in-law. In a typical year, he owned about 200, almost half of them under the age of sixteen.

I apologize, I realise that I started this and it's way off topic.

 

[FireDancer]

I find it odd that someone who is willing to profile someone based on something as unimportant as their name is so up in arms about their privacy.

"We should profile passengers on airlines based on Muslim names."
Shrubber 1/8/10

Either the police (and by extension the TSA) can do whatever is necessary to catch a bad guy, like profile them by their name or track them by their cell phone, or they can not. It can't go both ways. You can't claim your rights are unalienable (or inalienable) but someone else's are not.

My effects and property are being searched

Your effects and property aren't being searched or seized. The cell phone company has access to your location information. It is stored on their servers. The police are searching their servers (ie property) for the location information, not you. If the phone company allows them to have access to the information no warrant is necessary. If they hold the information waiting for a subpoena or warrant it is the phone company that the warrant is against, not you since the information they are seizing is not yours but the possession of the company on who's server it sits.

This is a very important distinction.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

but he did it while owning slaves so how serious could he have been.

http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/biography.html
Jefferson inherited slaves from both his father and father-in-law. In a typical year, he owned about 200, almost half of them under the age of sixteen.

I apologize, I realise that I started this and it's way off topic.

True. According to his own historians though--it seemed he did wish to include it, but under pressure did not.

And then of course, he continued to benefit from his own failure.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I find it odd that someone who is willing to profile someone based on something as unimportant as their name is so up in arms about their privacy.



Either the police (and by extension the TSA) can do whatever is necessary to catch a bad guy, like profile them by their name or track them by their cell phone, or they can not. It can't go both ways. You can't claim your rights are unalienable (or inalienable) but someone else's are not.

VERY good point.

Especially when there are many Americans born and raised who would fit that profile.

 

[locolala]

You don't want to be tracked? Simple. Don't have a cell phone. Problem solved. Really, do you think the government has ANY intrest in tracking you? And, if they do have intrest in you, they'll get whatever they need in order to do so. If you're so worried about them tracking you, maybe the government SHOULD be tracking you, kind of like the people who submit the paperwork to get whatever information the gov't has.. well, we didn't have anything on you before, but now we know you're worried. So, now in addition to being billed for the manhours required to show you we don't have anything on you, you might find you're being watched.

Don't like it? Tough.

 

[shrubber]

I find it odd that someone who is willing to profile someone based on something as unimportant as their name is so up in arms about their privacy.



Either the police (and by extension the TSA) can do whatever is necessary to catch a bad guy, like profile them by their name or track them by their cell phone, or they can not. It can't go both ways. You can't claim your rights are unalienable (or inalienable) but someone else's are not.



Your effects and property aren't being searched or seized. The cell phone company has access to your location information. It is stored on their servers. The police are searching their servers (ie property) for the location information, not you. If the phone company allows them to have access to the information no warrant is necessary. If they hold the information waiting for a subpoena or warrant it is the phone company that the warrant is against, not you since the information they are seizing is not yours but the possession of the company on who's server it sits.

This is a very important distinction.

Bringing up thread from a month ago? interesting.
Apples and oranges really.
Being a passenger on an airline is an active action as far as security is concerned.
My location ( through the phone ) in these free States is a passive action. Unless of course, there is Probable Cause, and/or a Warrant, then the authorities can do their best to find me.
The issue here is warrantless searches of either ones person or possessions. And yes, of course my position being searched is a search.

 

[shrubber]

How is it that I cannot be forced to answer any questions to a police officer such as 'who are you' ' where are you going' 'where have you been' because it is a direct violation of my unalienable rights as a citizen
http://http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

varies by state of course, but all are essentially the same after Hiibel.

But you think it is ok for the authorities to just circumvent those laws by calling up Verizon?
Makes no sense.

 

[shrubber]

You don't want to be tracked? Simple. Don't have a cell phone. Problem solved. Really, do you think the government has ANY intrest in tracking you? And, if they do have intrest in you, they'll get whatever they need in order to do so. If you're so worried about them tracking you, maybe the government SHOULD be tracking you, kind of like the people who submit the paperwork to get whatever information the gov't has.. well, we didn't have anything on you before, but now we know you're worried. So, now in addition to being billed for the manhours required to show you we don't have anything on you, you might find you're being watched.

Don't like it? Tough.

One of the Judges involved in the case does'nt think Tough....

Judge Dolores Sloviter, one of a three-judge panel, told Eckenwiler the government's case raised questions about the government's rights to track individuals.

"There are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been," she said, citing Iran as a government that monitors political meetings. "Wouldn't the government find it useful if it could get that information without showing probable cause? Don't we have to be concerned about that?"

 

[glitterkittyy]

Seems a simple solution. If you don't like the idea of tracking by cell phone, don't own one.

 

[shrubber]

Seems a simple solution. If you don't like the idea of tracking by cell phone, don't own one.

You don't need a cell phone for the authorities to track your movements....
http://http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/07/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police

Again, all without a warrant
Scary stuff

 

[Squirlz]

You don't need a cell phone for the authorities to track your movements....
http://http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/07/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police

Again, all without a warrant
Scary stuff

Not scary at all if you don't live a life of fear and paranoia.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Oops sorry about the error in numbers I'm sure the 50,000 that were enslaved and the 12 million Africans who were enslaved over the next 100 or so years

There were never 12 million slaves here in the US.

Please reread the post you quoted. No, there were not twelve million slaves in this country at one time. Slavery started with 50,000 Africans brought from Africa either against their individual wills or under deceptive conditions/circumstances. Eventually, through being born to parents who were slaves, they and their offspring (and subsequent generations) totalled twelve million slaves.

But they were safe from gummint tracking. None of 'em had cell phones.

By the way, U.S. historic population numbers indicate that eliza's figures are ENTIRELY reasonable. http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspop.htm

It was not 'a hundred years or so either '
The horror of slavery lasted in this country from the ratification of the Constitution to the Emancipation Proclamation,,about 75 years

Wrong on SO many counts. To begin, the first slaves were brought from Africa (and traded for food!) in 1619.
The Constitution was ratified in 1787 and EXTENDED slavery for twenty years - it's not the start of slavery.
You're right on one point - the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in 1865.

That's 246 years, not "about 75".

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

HOWEVER - your cell phone provider is not your person, house, papers, or effects. The police want - not unreasonably - access to their records in specific instances, and only to determine where and when a cell phone WAS used. Not where it is being used, but where/when at some time in the past.

Those aren't your records. You have no claim to them.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I fully realize that, the comment was made about our country and specifically the failings of our Constitiution, which could hardly be held accountable some 287 years before Jefferson wrote the thing.

No. The comment erroneously claimed slavery started when the Constitution was ratified. The specific statement was

It was not 'a hundred years or so either '
The horror of slavery lasted in this country from the ratification of the Constitution to the Emancipation Proclamation,,about 75 years

Now, either you're claiming slavery only existed for 76 years - or you're stating that it wasn't a horror for the hundred and eighty years preceding ratification.

 

[kaytieeldr]

What country was this in 1619 again?

You were incorrect in your first statement.
This country has indeed not held the institution of slavery for more than 200 years.

America. You are therefore wrong in stating that another poster's statement is wrong.

 

[kaytieeldr]

My effects and property are being searched

No. Your cell phone company's records are being examined.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

America. You are therefore wrong in stating that another poster's statement is wrong.

In 1619 it was just the Virginia colony.

But that is neither here nor there. Slavery did not begin in 1776 as is being claimed.

And prior to the parchment, we were not an independent country, but we were indeed a governed colony who opted--without England's directive or assistance, to carry on with slavery.

So just b/c we declared ourselves independent in 1776, doesn't mean we were not carrying on as a nation prior to that. We just were not independent due to that whole taxation without representation thing.