 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / February 2006Cellphone records-is this legal?
www.locatecellphone.com They will give you the last 100 #'s dialed from a cell or landline...Wow > www.locatecellphone.com > > They will give you the last 100 #'s dialed from a cell or landline...Wow Your sarcasm is noted. Google is your friend. This subject has been posted to just about every alt.cellular.* group. And while it sounds good, Cingular, VZW and Sprint/Nextel all have policies that they DO NOT give out this information.  SignatureAndrew D. Sisson LG VX8100 VZW<BAM<FRONTIER CELLULAR<ROCHESTER TEL. MOBILE SID 154 EV-DO PRL 50463 SINCE APRIL 1993 And policies mean nothing when these companies are getting the records anyway (probably by paying someone in IT or customer service to steal the info). >> www.locatecellphone.com >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > policies that > they DO NOT give out this information. > And policies mean nothing when these companies are getting the > records anyway (probably by paying someone in IT or customer > service to steal the info). I would not be surprised if the cellular companies got a court order against theses companies to disclose where and how they are getting their inside info. >I would not be surprised if the cellular companies got a court order >against theses companies to disclose where and how they are getting >their inside info. That will go nowhere fast. The company spokesholes would invoke his RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT and FREEDOM OF SPEECH rights. And if there was some left-wing nut job judge who threatened them with contempt, they would just plead the 5th. >> I would not be surprised if the cellular companies got a court order >> against theses companies to disclose where and how they are getting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The company spokesholes would invoke his RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT You only have a right to remain silent in criminal cases. Cingular obtaining a court order to subpoena records would be a civil matter, and by cirtue of obtaining the court order, the company would most certainly NOT have a right to remain silent. > and > FREEDOM OF SPEECH rights. The company can say anyting it wants about how unfair and cruel the court order is. So how is it violating the company's free speech rights? Speaking of which, rights are generally bestowed upon PEOPLE. Do companies have rights, per se? > And if there was some left-wing nut job judge who threatened them with > contempt, they would just plead the 5th. So, prosecuting a corporation for fraud is a left wing liberal thing now? SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. >Speaking of which, rights are generally bestowed upon PEOPLE. Do >companies have rights, per se? Yes -- crept in via the Supreme Court. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes -- crept in via the Supreme Court. Cite? >> In <11u2f64a9fdirac@corp.supernews.com> on Wed, 01 Feb 2006 >> 17:57:06 -0500, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Cite? <http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/freespeech.html> p.s. Expect to be held to the same standard. ;) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >You only have a right to remain silent in criminal cases. Cingular >obtaining a court order to subpoena records would be a civil matter, and >by cirtue of obtaining the court order, the company would most certainly >NOT have a right to remain silent. If the person believes that his answers in a civil case will reveal incriminating evidence that *MAY* lead to criminal charges filed against him, then he can remain silent. I will give an example: Let's say a person is getting civily sued by the RIAA because they believe he is pirating CDs. The RIAA asks him in civil court -- "Did you pirate copyrighted music?" If that person did it, then that person can plead the 5th in a civil trial if he fears that his answer may cause the district attorney to file criminal charges against him. He can say "I refuse to answer that question." It only makes sense. How would you like to be sued, dragged into civil court, be forced to pay for an attorney to defend yourself (there is no court appointed attorney in civil cases), have the burden of proof be NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE" (i.e., 51% likely he did it and he is LIABLE) and asked questions like: "Have you ever pirated a piece of software?" "Have you ever pirated music or videos?" "Have you ever sped on the freeway and gotten away with it?" "Have you ever broken any law and gotten away with it?" (The only one who would not perjure himself is JOHN NAVAS! ;^> ) and then later on get indicted by the district attorney for the relevant criminal statutes/charges above for pirating music or videos? Or receive a ticket in the mail? >So, prosecuting a corporation for fraud is a left wing liberal thing now? No. Feel free to prosecute a corporation. Just don't expect them and don't expect to be able to compel them to admit it if they did what you allege. You need to have proof beyond compelling them to fess up if guilty. >>You only have a right to remain silent in criminal cases. Cingular >>obtaining a court order to subpoena records would be a civil matter, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >incriminating evidence that *MAY* lead to criminal charges filed >against him, then he can remain silent. In a deposition, but civil discovery (e.g., documents) cannot be withheld on just First Amendment grounds. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >In a deposition, but civil discovery (e.g., documents) cannot be withheld on >just First Amendment grounds. That's why you do THIS before discovery: <http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/outsourcing/isptelecom/story/0,108 01,72358,00.html> >>In a deposition, but civil discovery (e.g., documents) cannot be withheld on >>just First Amendment grounds. > >That's why you do THIS before discovery: > ><http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/outsourcing/isptelecom/story/0,108 01,72358,00.html> Of course -- a Document Retention Order is a routine first step. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In a deposition, but civil discovery (e.g., documents) cannot be withheld on > just First Amendment grounds. The discussion was about "remaining silent;" not about pre-trial discovery documents. One might assume it takes AADD to make that leap. And BTW, Perry Mason, a deposition *is* part of discovery--and you most certainly can invoke your Fifth Amendment right during both a civil deposition as well as the trial itself (e.g., Mark Fuhrman during OJ's civil case). And what the heck does the First Amendment have to do with anything here? Is Cingular a news organization now? A religious group? A new political party? Maybe you should stick to cellphones, yes? (I jumped in here to see how things are going with Cingular--who are building up heavily in my area--and the first posts I saw were typical Navas back-peddling. You folks are sooooo lucky!) SignatureMike > And policies mean nothing when these companies are getting the > records anyway (probably by paying someone in IT or customer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > policies that > > they DO NOT give out this information. Actually from what I have been reading it appears the records are getting obtained through social engineering or by going to the cingular website and posing as the user. Which is strange - I thought it would be from a person also |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.