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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Sep 8 9:06 AM
    • 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 2 of 12 , Sep 8 1:05 PM
      • 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 3 of 12 , Sep 8 2:14 PM
        • 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.