Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS

Expand Messages
  • Ricky Gurley
    That s a fine opinion if you are working any type of an investigation where you can afford to wait for a subpoena. Child Recovery Abduction Cases? Wait for a
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      That's a fine opinion if you are working any type of an investigation where you can afford to wait for a subpoena.


      Child Recovery Abduction Cases? Wait for a subpoena, you say?

      Kidnapping Cases? Wait for subpoena?

      A Runaway Case? Wait for a subpoena?


      I suppose these types of cases would hold for a subpoena, but the victim's in these cases or the perpetrator of these types of crimes might not.........




      Rick.



      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
      Webpage: http://www.rmriinc.com
      Blog: http://rmriinc.livejournal.com/
      2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Phone: (888) 571-0958 Fax: (877) 795-9800 Cell: (573) 529-0808
      Company Email: RMRI-Inc@... Internet Email:
      rmriinc@...
      "He Who Forgets Will Be Destined To Remember"

      RMRI, Inc. Authorized Investigator Portal http://rmri.no-ip.org/mydms



      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Bob Hrodey <rth@...>
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2007 12:48:17 AM
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS

      Ricky Gurley wrote:
      > To all,
      >
      > I believe that call records have a place in our industry too. However, I also believe that they are a consumer privacy breach. This is why I am a proponent of having a system in place where the people in the professions that need them and have a legitimate immediate need to obtain them; could have access to them under some type of a permissible purpose clause.

      We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their
      relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.

      That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate
      need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business,
      not mine!

      --

      Enjoy,

      Bob
      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

      Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
      Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
      Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
      Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
      email: inquiry@hrodey. com or rth@...
      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/7/2007 8:54:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rth@hrodey.com writes: We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/7/2007 8:54:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
        rth@... writes:

        We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their
        relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.

        That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate
        need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business,
        not mine!



        Bob -

        I do disagree with you on this one. The police and the municipalities do
        not need SDT's. Why should we for the same case for the same evidence? Why
        should we be forced to show our hand in advance robbing us of ANY opportunity
        for surprise or impeachment? Also, at least here in CA, a consumer notice has
        to be sent to the party prior to sending a subpoena and if they say NO, the
        court might side with them. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars later,
        the Supreme Court after the Appellate Court will send it back and grant the
        SDT.

        Not only is this such an outrageous waste of money, it is also a totally
        unfair disadvantage to our side.


        If you read most State's PUC laws you will see that LEO's do not need
        subpoenas. Disclosure to them is permissible.




        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency

        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564_ www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-242-9824 FAX

        "one Nation under God"

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
        a military veteran !



        ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Patrick Baird
        The main issue I was trying to point out was the fact that we simply can not stand still and watch all of tools in our arsenal be taken away from big brother,
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          The main issue I was trying to point out was the fact that we simply can not
          stand still and watch all of tools in our arsenal be taken away from big
          brother, in doing so government officials (on all levels) are simply helping
          the criminals and deadbeats. If this cycle continues the whole financial
          industry will fold because they will enviably ban skiptracing altogether.

          Sue made some great points and it is up to each and every one of us to get
          vigilant, involved and ultimately help ourselves, our associations and most
          importantly the private investigation industry fight to keep the necessary
          tools we need to make a difference.

          Great Group!!

          Patrick Baird, TPLI

          1st Source / PDJ Investigations - Lic A10979
          Phone: 817-579-0083
          Fax: 817-579-5301
          Cell: 1-866-440-6110
          U.S. & International Skip Tracing & Telephone Investigations
          http://www.FindByPhone.com/
          .
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Ricky Gurley" <rmriinc@...>
          To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:29 PM
          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS


          To all,

          I believe that call records have a place in our industry too. However, I
          also believe that they are a consumer privacy breach. This is why I am a
          proponent of having a system in place where the people in the professions
          that need them and have a legitimate immediate need to obtain them; could
          have access to them under some type of a permissible purpose clause.

          There is a point that I would like to comment on. With all due respect, I
          think it is unfair to suggest that it would be appropriate to obtain these
          records without some type of authorization by saying "this only affects the
          people that have something to hide". That has long since been a recognized
          way of trying to "trick" someone into giving up one or some of their privacy
          privileges. It's kind of like asking someone to strip naked, and when they
          refuse to do so, then saying "Well why not, if you have nothing to hide ?".

          I think we are better off acknowledging that obtaining consumer call records
          by someone other than who these records belong to or who has an account that
          these records go to is in fact a breach of personal privacy, However, I
          believe the right approach to this issue is that in some cases there is a
          need to have consumer call records which is greater than and outweighs any
          consumer privacy concerns.


          Rick.


          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
          Webpage: http://www.rmriinc.com
          Blog: http://rmriinc.livejournal.com/
          2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Phone: (888) 571-0958 Fax: (877) 795-9800 Cell: (573) 529-0808
          Company Email: RMRI-Inc@... Internet Email:
          rmriinc@...
          "He Who Forgets Will Be Destined To Remember"

          RMRI, Inc. Authorized Investigator Portal http://rmri.no-ip.org/mydms



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Patrick Baird <pdjservices@...>
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: suesarkis@...
          Sent: Friday, September 7, 2007 8:06:16 PM
          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS

          Excellent point Sue!!

          Yes I grant permission to any and all that would like to participate in this
          discussion and to better inform our local, state, and federal government to
          use my post on this matter including my signature line. I know this
          particular issue is dead, however, I am happy to offer my assistance to the
          industry in any way possible. Thanks again for your comments!!

          Patrick Baird, TPLI

          1st Source / PDJ Investigations - Lic A10979
          Phone: 817-579-0083
          Fax: 817-579-5301
          Cell: 1-866-440-6110
          U.S. & International Skip Tracing & Telephone Investigations

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: i-direct
          To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
          Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:35 PM
          Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS

          _____

          From: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:infoguys-list@ yahoogroups.
          com]
          On Behalf Of suesarkis@aol. com
          Sent: 07 September 2007 20:31
          To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS

          This is to everyone. Please get rid of those confidentiality notices as
          there are no such law that prohibit dissemination. For that matter, if I
          wasn't
          the intended recipient, they would not have wound up in my specific mailbox
          since the Internet is not a careless as my USPS carrier. So many people have

          similar warnings and all one can do is wonder.

          Patrick -

          Since you did send us to YOUR blog and you are the author of that wonderful
          presentation, I humbly request a few things.

          For starters, please grant us permission to share with our Reps and Senators

          which would include your signature line.

          Second, please ask everyone on all lists to actually share with the Reps and

          Senators. Also allow us to share with other lists that are independent of
          the other members. We don't want to inundate with repeats.

          Third, ask that they inform you who and when sent so that we (you) can keep
          track so that the rest of us can divvy up the remaining unnoticed Reps and
          Senators.

          We need to make sure they all start reading intelligent statements about the

          harm they are doing to everyone. It is up to us as individuals to save our
          bacon and we cannot rely on associations that represent, in most cases, a
          very small handful of licensees.

          Thank you for your splendid input.

          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ____________ _________ ___
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency

          (est. 1976)
          PI 6564_ www.sarkispi. com_ (http://www.sarkispi <http://www.sarkispi .com/>
          .com/)

          1346 Ethel Street
          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          818-242-2505
          818-242-9824 FAX

          "one Nation under God"

          If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
          a military veteran !

          ************ ********* ********* ******** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
          AOL
          at
          http://discover. <http://discover. aol.com/memed/ aolcom30tour>
          aol.com/memed/ aolcom30tour

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          <p><hr></p>
          To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
          href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
          To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
          href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
          <p><hr></p>
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Bob Hrodey
          ... That makes it seem pretty obvious that the State of CA deems this information to be confidential and worthy of protection. As for wholesale delivery of
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            suesarkis@... wrote:
            >
            > In a message dated 9/7/2007 8:54:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
            > rth@... writes:
            >
            > We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their
            > relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.
            >
            > That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate
            > need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business,
            > not mine!
            >
            >
            >
            > Bob -
            >
            > I do disagree with you on this one. The police and the municipalities do
            > not need SDT's. Why should we for the same case for the same evidence? Why
            > should we be forced to show our hand in advance robbing us of ANY opportunity
            > for surprise or impeachment? Also, at least here in CA, a consumer notice has
            > to be sent to the party prior to sending a subpoena and if they say NO, the
            > court might side with them. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars later,
            > the Supreme Court after the Appellate Court will send it back and grant the
            > SDT.

            That makes it seem pretty obvious that the State of CA deems this
            information to be confidential and worthy of protection.

            As for wholesale delivery of these records to LEO's... I'll admit to
            being a bit behind the curve since I've been out of LE for a number
            years but last I knew the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
            (and as it's been amended) prohibits the release of this information to
            LE without court order or subpoena. MUD and TOLLS, the call records
            we're talking about required a subpoena from LE even before ECPA.
            Suspect that this may have changed with the Patriot Act, etc. but...

            As for kidnappings and parental abductions? If the family hasn't
            involved LE, that's their problem and that of the victim.

            > Not only is this such an outrageous waste of money, it is also a totally
            > unfair disadvantage to our side.

            Yes, it is. However, to advocate giving carte blanc access to these
            records to any private detective is just asking for it. These extreme
            examples, as cited by Ricky, are the exception, not the rule. The
            firestorm and subsequent legislation that rained down on us did NOT
            arise due to some PI getting tolls to solve a kidnapping. It came from
            some idiots figuring that the end justified the means. Well, I think
            they found out that it didn't.

            No offense to anyone reading this (but if the shoe fits) but, quite
            frankly, we all know of folks who are walking around stating they are
            PI's and, in the eyes of the law, they are. However, there are a number
            of those folks that I would not trust to pour water out of a bucket if
            the instructions were printed on the bottom of the bucket and they were
            instructed to read the directions first<g> These are the folks who are
            going to have access to my personal records? Don't think so.



            --

            Enjoy,

            Bob
            ______________________________________________________________________________

            Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
            Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
            Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
            Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
            email: inquiry@... or rth@...
            Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
          • Ricky Gurley
            ... these ... extreme ... from ... think ... are ... number ... if ... were ... are ... Let me say this first. Currently; I could care less whether call
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Bob Hrodey <rth@...> wrote:

              >
              > Yes, it is. However, to advocate giving carte blanc access to
              these
              > records to any private detective is just asking for it. These
              extreme
              > examples, as cited by Ricky, are the exception, not the rule. The
              > firestorm and subsequent legislation that rained down on us did NOT
              > arise due to some PI getting tolls to solve a kidnapping. It came
              from
              > some idiots figuring that the end justified the means. Well, I
              think
              > they found out that it didn't.
              >
              > No offense to anyone reading this (but if the shoe fits) but, quite
              > frankly, we all know of folks who are walking around stating they
              are
              > PI's and, in the eyes of the law, they are. However, there are a
              number
              > of those folks that I would not trust to pour water out of a bucket
              if
              > the instructions were printed on the bottom of the bucket and they
              were
              > instructed to read the directions first<g> These are the folks who
              are
              > going to have access to my personal records? Don't think so.
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              >
              > Enjoy,
              >
              > Bob


              Let me say this first. Currently; I could care less whether call
              records are outlawed or not. Call records are not how I make a
              living. I make a fairly good living too, and I have not had a need
              for call records in quite a while. When they were legal, I
              occasionally used them. Now that they are not (or even have the
              slightest possibility of getting me sued), I don't touch them.
              However, I realize that I am not the only P.I. in the world, and that
              for some of the other P.I.s in the world, there could be a need. So,
              I make this post.


              In my opinion, it is these extreme examples that give way to a need
              in certain cases for private sector personnel to have access to call
              records. In a perfect world there could be one entire Police Task
              Force per criminal, dedicated to bringing that one criminal to
              justice. But in our imperfect world, the Police are backlogged with
              cases and short on manpower to meet the demand for combating crime.
              This is why it is foolish to say "they should have the Police
              involved" and disregard the private citizen's often enough need to
              hire someone in the private sector that can dedicate immediate
              attention to a critical problem. This applies in these "extreme
              examples" that you quote me on, Bob.

              Here I am not saying that there is not a privacy issue, what I am
              saying is that privacy is not always paramount. Call records are in
              fact a "tool" that has long since been used in our industry with good
              results, and abused by our industry with the results we are seeing
              here in this thread. But let me ask you this; how many P.I.s REALLY
              know how to read a database report? For those that do REALLY know how
              to read a database report, how are call records any more invasive
              than a database report? Often times I can determine who someone is
              banking with from a database report. What kind of vehicle they drive.
              Who they bought their vehicle from. Who their mother and father are.
              Sometimes even what their political affiliations are. And sometimes
              who they associate with. Mind you, some of this is in fact NOT public
              records. Our "private lives" are already open books for ANYONE to
              browse if they know how. Just go to: http://www.pipl.com and run a
              search on someone; you can find tons of personal information on a
              person there for FREE.

              The notion that our privacy is sacred has long since been a myth.
              What is surprising is to see Private Investigators that make a
              living "snooping" into people private lives appear shocked that this
              could be happening to them. For a Private Investigator to display
              such a disdain for what we might consider "breaches of personal
              privacy" is the perfect illustration of an oxymoron. Not only is this
              an oxymoron; it raises the "BS Meter" of any intelligent consumer
              that observes it.

              Why not just be honest and say; "Yes getting consumer call records is
              certainly a violation of personal privacy, but "Joe
              Kidnapper/Rapist's" privacy may not be so important to you when it is
              your daughter or wife he has kidnapped". I think that the consumer
              can go with that argument better than any of the others we are
              offering. I certainly think that argument might give a concerned
              consumer pause more-so than saying "I snoop into people's lives for a
              living, and I agree with the concerned consumer", because then the
              consumer starts to think "this is the guy that is irresponsibly
              violating people's privacy, he just hasn't been caught yet".

              I think that some of the problem is that there should be a certain
              amount of transparency in what we do. I don't think we have to give
              away "trade secrets" to have that transparency either. If the
              consumer could see that the P.I. Profession is made up mostly of
              good, honest, and ethical people, with good intentions; instead of
              seeing only the "bad press" we get which in reality only illustrates
              a very minute part of our industry; the consumer would not be so
              critical of us.


              Those are just my thoughts.



              Rick.



              Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
              "He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"

              MAIL BOX: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
              OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203

              Phone: (888) 571-0958
              Fax: (877) 795-9800
              Cell: (573) 529-0808

              Email
              RMRI-Inc@...

              Webpage
              http://www.rmriinc.com
            • Patrick Baird
              To Everyone: Excellent points from everyone. Maybe, we (private investigators) can collectively come-up with a generalized statement that can be used on our
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                To Everyone:

                Excellent points from everyone. Maybe, we (private investigators) can collectively come-up with a generalized statement that can be used on our blogs, emails, websites, etc. that helps educate the uninformed of the serious and sensitive predicament we are all in. These links can direct people to a central website/URL that will inform, offer sample text for emails/letters and more importantly list direct links, addresses and fax numbers to the various government agencies that are investigating and/or making these laws.

                We can not save call records - but as an industry we can try and help our associations and more importantly ourselves from future government intervention.

                Just a thought....

                Patrick Baird, TPLI

                1st Source / PDJ Investigations - Lic A10979
                Phone: 817-579-0083
                Fax: 817-579-5301
                Cell: 1-866-440-6110
                U.S. & International Skip Tracing & Telephone Investigations
                http://www.FindByPhone.com/

                CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
                This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail please destroy this message immediately.
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Bob Hrodey
                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:06 AM
                Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] DEATH OF CALL RECORDS IN TEXAS


                suesarkis@... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 9/7/2007 8:54:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                > rth@... writes:
                >
                > We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their
                > relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.
                >
                > That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate
                > need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business,
                > not mine!
                >
                >
                >
                > Bob -
                >
                > I do disagree with you on this one. The police and the municipalities do
                > not need SDT's. Why should we for the same case for the same evidence? Why
                > should we be forced to show our hand in advance robbing us of ANY opportunity
                > for surprise or impeachment? Also, at least here in CA, a consumer notice has
                > to be sent to the party prior to sending a subpoena and if they say NO, the
                > court might side with them. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars later,
                > the Supreme Court after the Appellate Court will send it back and grant the
                > SDT.

                That makes it seem pretty obvious that the State of CA deems this
                information to be confidential and worthy of protection.

                As for wholesale delivery of these records to LEO's... I'll admit to
                being a bit behind the curve since I've been out of LE for a number
                years but last I knew the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
                (and as it's been amended) prohibits the release of this information to
                LE without court order or subpoena. MUD and TOLLS, the call records
                we're talking about required a subpoena from LE even before ECPA.
                Suspect that this may have changed with the Patriot Act, etc. but...

                As for kidnappings and parental abductions? If the family hasn't
                involved LE, that's their problem and that of the victim.

                > Not only is this such an outrageous waste of money, it is also a totally
                > unfair disadvantage to our side.

                Yes, it is. However, to advocate giving carte blanc access to these
                records to any private detective is just asking for it. These extreme
                examples, as cited by Ricky, are the exception, not the rule. The
                firestorm and subsequent legislation that rained down on us did NOT
                arise due to some PI getting tolls to solve a kidnapping. It came from
                some idiots figuring that the end justified the means. Well, I think
                they found out that it didn't.

                No offense to anyone reading this (but if the shoe fits) but, quite
                frankly, we all know of folks who are walking around stating they are
                PI's and, in the eyes of the law, they are. However, there are a number
                of those folks that I would not trust to pour water out of a bucket if
                the instructions were printed on the bottom of the bucket and they were
                instructed to read the directions first<g> These are the folks who are
                going to have access to my personal records? Don't think so.

                --

                Enjoy,

                Bob
                __________________________________________________________

                Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                email: inquiry@... or rth@...
                Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.