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

The Great Cell Phone Record Debate....

Expand Messages
  • Ricky Gurley
    I hate to be a pain in the keister (actually I don t, but I should say that I do so I appear not to be starting trouble . LOL.) A while back there was some
    Message 1 of 4 , May 6, 2006
      I hate to be a pain in the keister (actually I don't, but I should
      say that I do so I appear not to be "starting trouble". LOL.)

      A while back there was some postings about how it was wrong to
      obtain cell phone records without a court order.. How the right way
      to do this was with a subpoena.. How Law Enforcement has always had
      to use a subpoena to obtain these records.. And yada, yada,
      yada..........

      Then I read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12534959/

      WOW! The FBI, none the less...........

      I am curious if after reading this, some of you former law
      enforcement types still feel the same way about having to subpoena
      cell phone records? And if you do still feel the same way, what
      suggestions would you make to sanction your brethren that have been
      obtaining cell phone records through private Information Brokers? I
      guess it's time to go back on your opinions, or give us some
      suggestions on how to rectify this problem..... I suppose you could
      say that it is alright for Law Enforcement to do this, but not
      Private Investigators.....

      Rick.




      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
      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@...
    • Paul Curtis
      Rick, Since I am one of the people who misspoke here based on the laws of the old west :-) let me respond to your questions, please. First of all, you are
      Message 2 of 4 , May 6, 2006
        Rick,



        Since I am one of the people who misspoke here based on the laws of the
        "old" west :-) let me respond to your questions, please.



        First of all, you are not a pain in anything for asking and I am pretty
        certain that your intention is to try to learn something just as mine is.
        Therefore, no need to apologize.



        If we were to set aside all of the particulars in this instance and speak
        strictly from an ethics standpoint, the fact remains that NO ONE is above
        the law and that includes people with badges and guns. Two wrongs never
        make a right and this is no different.



        It turns out that our brother, Mr. Hrodey, based his response to me and
        others on a law that I didn't even know existed and hadn't existed until two
        years after I left law enforcement. Since I have never purchased or
        otherwise acquired phone records for or about anyone I have never bothered
        to review laws covering the subject. What that means is that my response to
        the original post was incorrect and I stand corrected and with appreciation
        for what I learned as a result.



        The simple fact is that there is no excuse for what has gone on and no
        justification for breaking the law no matter how important or trivial it may
        be. If the law requires court supervision in this area for everyone then
        law enforcement should not be an exception. It seems to me that a court
        order is the only choice available for obtaining original records. If
        someone knows differently I am certainly open to hearing about it.



        I believe it will be up to the courts to decide what if any sanctions will
        be handed down based on conviction of a crime. So far, all we have is the
        suggestion albeit perhaps under oath, that various members of law
        enforcement agencies have obtained records from information brokers.
        Without a conviction, sanctions are not appropriate. This is no different
        than having to let a criminal go because a witness recants or because the
        evidence was obtained improperly. It works both ways on either side of the
        table.



        Further, I don't mean to sound like I am attempting to gloss over it or in
        any way justify what happened. I am not. What I mean to do is suggest that
        until there is a conviction there should not be sanctions whether the person
        is in law enforcement or not. Personally, I hold people in law enforcement
        to a higher standard because they know or should know the laws they are
        charged with enforcing.



        Paul Curtis

        Costa Mesa, CA

        pncurtis@...





        _____

        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
        Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:46 PM
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [infoguys-list] The Great Cell Phone Record Debate....




        I hate to be a pain in the keister (actually I don't, but I should
        say that I do so I appear not to be "starting trouble". LOL.)

        A while back there was some postings about how it was wrong to
        obtain cell phone records without a court order.. How the right way
        to do this was with a subpoena.. How Law Enforcement has always had
        to use a subpoena to obtain these records.. And yada, yada,
        yada..........

        Then I read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12534959/

        WOW! The FBI, none the less...........

        I am curious if after reading this, some of you former law
        enforcement types still feel the same way about having to subpoena
        cell phone records? And if you do still feel the same way, what
        suggestions would you make to sanction your brethren that have been
        obtaining cell phone records through private Information Brokers? I
        guess it's time to go back on your opinions, or give us some
        suggestions on how to rectify this problem..... I suppose you could
        say that it is alright for Law Enforcement to do this, but not
        Private Investigators.....

        Rick.




        Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
        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@...





        <p><hr></p>
        To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
        href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscrib
        e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
        To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
        href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubs
        cribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
        <p><hr></p>




        SPONSORED LINKS


        Credit
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Credit+report+law&w1=Credit+report+law&
        w2=Government+law&w3=Law&w4=Private+investigator&w5=Use&c=5&s=87&.sig=Um4jxE
        CUUR39_UarXWH1qg> report law

        Government
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+law&w1=Credit+report+law&w2=
        Government+law&w3=Law&w4=Private+investigator&w5=Use&c=5&s=87&.sig=qx5-cYtYW
        DKFw04QFnhkZA> law

        Law
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Law&w1=Credit+report+law&w2=Government+
        law&w3=Law&w4=Private+investigator&w5=Use&c=5&s=87&.sig=ZFTLyn6gM61epO-WWBX4
        vA>


        Private
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Private+investigator&w1=Credit+report+l
        aw&w2=Government+law&w3=Law&w4=Private+investigator&w5=Use&c=5&s=87&.sig=Pi4
        E_K12LfzaCvyS5Lvs-g> investigator

        Use
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Use&w1=Credit+report+law&w2=Government+
        law&w3=Law&w4=Private+investigator&w5=Use&c=5&s=87&.sig=rfi2u1CQiyweBDWuCxbX
        Jg>





        _____

        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



        * Visit your group "infoguys-list
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list> " on the web.

        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



        _____



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • oracleintl@aol.com
        Don t fret Rick, we all know you live to be a pain in the ass - but the Lord works in strange and mysterious ways, and in His infinite wisdom, He has made me
        Message 3 of 4 , May 6, 2006
          Don't fret Rick, we all know you live to be a pain in the ass - but the Lord
          works in strange and mysterious ways, and in His infinite wisdom, He has
          made me available to you to help sort thru your confusions.

          Let's start with your closing statement "..... I suppose you could say that
          it is alright for Law Enforcement to do this, but not Private
          Investigators....."

          No, but yes.

          No, I would not say that, but yes, I do expect the ultimate legislation to
          say exactly that - but I'm a guy who pays attention to history which, as is
          often pointed out, tends to repeat itself. Look up the exemptions to Graham
          Leach Bliley - now why do you suppose that is?

          Let's proceed on thru your next-to-last assertion, "I guess it's time to go
          back on your opinions, or give us some suggestions on how to rectify this
          problem.."

          No, and no.

          What, precisely, do you think has changed? While it may be "news" to you
          that the info brokers have revealed that they were also selling this info to
          law enforcement, that certainly is not news to me. Law enforcement has looked
          to commercially available information for as long as there has been
          commercially available information.

          If it turns out that info brokers are, and have been, violating the law in
          the acquisition of these toll records, it does not follow that the buyers have
          violated any law, because the info brokers keep their methods secret. Once
          the government announces that their methods are, and have been unlawful, that
          changes things.

          I use Lexis. Suppose an investigation reveals that Lexis does not obtain
          their DMV records legally - suppose it turns out that they are actually
          kidnapping the children of high placed DMV officials in various states and holding
          them for information ransom? Am I in trouble?

          Of course not - I did nothing but buy that which is "readily available in
          commerce." Without "criminal intent" there generally is no crime.

          Now, before you launch into a proclamation that "BUT IT's AGAINST THE LAW,"
          find the law and read it closely. Do not expand upon what it says. There is
          no law that I know of that says it is illegal to acquire a third party's
          telephone toll records - in fact, let's look at an example.

          Suppose you throw your toll records in the trash and I find them there - I
          can have them can't I? I can also legally sell them to a third party with an
          interest in your records can't I?

          Unless you can make the case that there is no possible legal way to have
          obtained the record, you cannot sanction the purchaser of that record as they
          are not responsible for the unlawful acts of the seller.

          In playing your "Gurley the Gadfly" role, you have always had a tendency to
          see a few steps and take off running in the direction that you think they go;
          however, you are definitely learning. Rather than bless us with some
          half-baked declarative assertion of the facts according to Gurley . . . this time,
          you open with questions.

          I have to give you credit for that.

          Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
          Oracle International
          _http://www.fraudsandscams.com/_ (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/)
          _http://www.oracleinternational.com/_ (http://www.oracleinternational.com/)
          PO Box 10728
          Naples, FL 34101
          (239) 304-1639
          (239) 304-1640 Fax




          In a message dated 5/6/2006 3:47:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          rmriinc@... writes:

          I hate to be a pain in the keister (actually I don't, but I should
          say that I do so I appear not to be "starting trouble". LOL.)

          A while back there was some postings about how it was wrong to
          obtain cell phone records without a court order.. How the right way
          to do this was with a subpoena.. How Law Enforcement has always had
          to use a subpoena to obtain these records.. And yada, yada,
          yada..........

          Then I read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12534959/

          WOW! The FBI, none the less...........

          I am curious if after reading this, some of you former law
          enforcement types still feel the same way about having to subpoena
          cell phone records? And if you do still feel the same way, what
          suggestions would you make to sanction your brethren that have been
          obtaining cell phone records through private Information Brokers? I
          guess it's time to go back on your opinions, or give us some
          suggestions on how to rectify this problem..... I suppose you could
          say that it is alright for Law Enforcement to do this, but not
          Private Investigators.....

          Rick.






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • suesarkis@aol.com
          Paul and others - I appreciate everyone being in agreement that LEO s are not above the law. I also agree with Paul s statement implying that just because
          Message 4 of 4 , May 6, 2006
            Paul and others -

            I appreciate everyone being in agreement that LEO's are not above the law.
            I also agree with Paul's statement implying that just because some
            information brokers said they sold records to the FBI does not make it so. However and
            regardless, who cares? Didn't the CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law
            Enforcement Act) of 1994 open up all phone records to the Feds? It doesn't
            matter who they got the information from if they are legally entitled.
            However, I do question the intelligence of a fed who covertly obtains records from
            someone criminally in possession of same. However, I'm certain that going
            to IB's is sometimes a heck of a lot faster than trying to even figure out
            which carrier to go to. We are heads above the LEOs on that one.

            Then we have the question of obtaining phone records via subpoena. I have
            not taken the time to review the laws in all 50 states. However, I do know
            that in the State of CA you may NOT, I repeat, may NOT lawfully subpoena phone
            records without the prior written consent of the consumer whose records are
            sought (CCP §1985.3). The lawyer can, however, obtain a court order from the
            sitting judge. I would, however, assume that there are similar laws in all
            50 states since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that customers’
            phone records are their private property and can only be disclosed to the
            customer or with the approval of the customer (47 U.S.C. 222).

            Just my 2¢ worth.



            Sincerely yours,
            Sue
            ____________________________________________________
            Sue Sarkis
            Sarkis Detective Agency

            (est. 1976)
            PI 6564
            1346 Ethel Street
            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
            818-242-2505
            818-242-9824 FAX

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

            God Bless America and her allies forever !!


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