Cops: U.S. law should require logs of your text messages

TruthOut10

Active Member
Dec 3, 2012
627
100
Silicon Valley firms and privacy groups want Congress to update a 1986-era electronic privacy law. But if a law enforcement idea set to be presented today gets attached, support for the popular proposal would erode.

AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and other wireless providers would be required to capture and store Americans' confidential text messages, according to a proposal that will be presented to a congressional panel today.

The law enforcement proposal would require wireless providers to record and store customers' SMS messages -- a controversial idea akin to requiring them to surreptitiously record audio of their customers' phone calls -- in case police decide to obtain them at some point in the future.

"Billions of texts are sent every day, and some surely contain key evidence about criminal activity," Richard Littlehale from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation will tell Congress, according to a copy (PDF) of his prepared remarks. "In some cases, this means that critical evidence is lost. Text messaging often plays a big role in investigations related to domestic violence, stalking, menacing, drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking."

Littlehale's recommendations echo a recommendation that a constellation of law enforcement groups, including the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association, made to Congress in December, which was first reported by CNET.

They had asked that an SMS retention requirement be glued onto any new law designed to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act for the cloud computing era -- a move that would complicate debate over such a measure and erode support for it among civil libertarians and the technology firms lobbying for a rewrite.

Cops: U.S. law should require logs of your text messages | Politics and Law - CNET News
 
Most phone companies keep your texts for a period of time, you agree to this when you sign the phone contract. They can and will give your private messages over to the police, as long as they have a warrent.

As to this push, 2 years is ridiculous. Not only is it an insane breech of privacy but a burdensome demand on phone companies.
 
Most phone companies keep your texts for a period of time, you agree to this when you sign the phone contract. They can and will give your private messages over to the police, as long as they have a warrent.

As to this push, 2 years is ridiculous. Not only is it an insane breech of privacy but a burdensome demand on phone companies.

That is different. It is contractual and agreed to upon starting with that company. There is a HUGE difference in a company instituting a policy and the government requiring it. The government should not be able to require the last ten minutes be recorded or any period of time whatsoever without having the warrant FIRST. You don’t get to collect data on people just because.
 
If you're Innocent and haven't broken any Law, then you've got nothing to worry about.

Would you allow a police officer to enter your home and search it because you haven't broken any law? Do you know how police officers search homes? Have you ever seen a home that has been searched by police, after they are done with the search and leave?

Every so often, some misguided, ill-informed person such as yourself will mouth this argument. Read the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Would you do away with that portion of the 4th that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures? Sounds like you would.

Well, I wouldn't. And neither would any other, thinking citizen.
 
If you're Innocent and haven't broken any Law, then you've got nothing to worry about.

Would you allow a police officer to enter your home and search it because you haven't broken any law? Do you know how police officers search homes? Have you ever seen a home that has been searched by police, after they are done with the search and leave?

Every so often, some misguided, ill-informed person such as yourself will mouth this argument. Read the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Would you do away with that portion of the 4th that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures? Sounds like you would.

Well, I wouldn't. And neither would any other, thinking citizen.

well, as we already have for the most part and most people dont seem to care one bit I would disagree. I guess you could say they were not thinking people but... the majority of people cant all be complete dunderheads and they STILL are willing to give up such a right.
 
'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.'
 

Forum List

Back
Top