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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.