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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
      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 2 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
        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 3 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
          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 4 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
            --- 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 5 of 12 , Sep 8, 2007
              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.