Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Would be nice but I highly doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
JV or someone deleted his post to which I was responding.....

JV, they're playing on the fact that people don't understand how computers, phones etc work. They have no device now and they won't have one as the premise is flawed at its foundation.

Text is sent as data. Phones use multiple data channels depending on the carrier and protocols used. The frequencies are tightly regulated and use a common spectrum so data being sent is sent using the same frequency regardless of if it's texting, web browsing, GPS information, etc. Add to that the issue that voice texting is legal and couldn't be differentiated from manual texting and you begin to see the tip of the iceberg that are the flaws in this idea.

I'm thinking some politician has a brother in law who has a company that is making these claims in an effort to attempt to garner funding from big brother after which the idea will prove too difficult to bring to market and the company goes bye bye.

What the police *do* have are devices that mimic a cell tower and capture all the info being relayed by a phone, but these devices aren't point and shoot. They are being used illegally, without your knowledge even though you're paying for them without knowing about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
JV or someone deleted his post to which I was responding.....

JV, they're playing on the fact that people don't understand how computers, phones etc work. They have no device now and they won't have one as the premise is flawed at its foundation.

Text is sent as data. Phones use multiple data channels depending on the carrier and protocols used. The frequencies are tightly regulated and use a common spectrum so data being sent is sent using the same frequency regardless of if it's texting, web browsing, GPS information, etc. Add to that the issue that voice texting is legal and couldn't be differentiated from manual texting and you begin to see the tip of the iceberg that are the flaws in this idea.

I'm thinking some politician has a brother in law who has a company that is making these claims in an effort to attempt to garner funding from big brother after which the idea will prove too difficult to bring to market and the company goes bye bye.

What the police *do* have are devices that mimic a cell tower and capture all the info being relayed by a phone, but these devices aren't point and shoot. They are being used illegally, without your knowledge even though you're paying for them without knowing about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
That was me who deleted the post because when searching for the video about the equipment to download a phone that exists now and is being used by police all over the country, I then ran across a supreme court decision that was relevant to what the police can do with data downloaded from a phone.

I didn't want to first read what the supreme court wrote then edit my post. Here is one of the devices I was talking about.
Apparently they are very sophisticated and do a complete job.


http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp



My point was that if a texting sniffer if it is real it will create a reason for devices like this to be used more often and could be used conceivably to determine on the spot or even later at the cop shop if the driver was texting. Once everyone's phones are downloaded that information is police property unless new laws appear that say different. They can sift through it at their leisure and do what they want with it as long as they don't break any laws doing so.

So those selfies of you and your wife might end up making the rounds of the precinct house.

The recent supreme court decision maybe such a law that prevents this . I don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Joe, we've had devices to dump a phone for a long time...nothing new there. The issue is under what circumstances does anyone have the right to take possession of your phone and dump the data? SCOTUS should have the last word, but problem is...people don't realize that if you're online or using any comms device everything is open season now. They're hoping to get forgiveness instead of asking for permission. The Stingray type devices are already collecting everything. It's pretty sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
All they need to do is make the phone companies put a in program that is tied to the GPS.
If the phone is moving more than 5 MPH ( a walking pace) the phone does not work !!!
Who cares whether or not you are "just a passenger"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
All they need to do is make the phone companies put a in program that is tied to the GPS.
If the phone is moving more than 5 MPH ( a walking pace) the phone does not work !!!
Who cares whether or not you are "just a passenger"?
That is a completely brilliant idea. No new technology needed.
Absolutely brilliant.

Now let see how long it takes for the government to force the communications companies to institute it. :ltr:
My guess is the cell carriers donate more to the government than those of us who are tired of idiots on phones trying to run us over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I rode motorcycles in he sixties and seventies when you were pretty well assured that if you were on the road the inebriated, maybe including you, were all around you.

Now it's C21 and those odds have been significantly moved toward my survival but moved back some by morons with phones. I survived the previous decades by hook or crook and did not ask for or invite police invasion of privacy to better my odds. Serve and protect is not equal to monitor and preemptively act, at least not in the America Pop grew up in.

It's entirely missing the point arguing the viability of a tech that increases police capability to make judgements about the citizens behavior before the citizen has infringed on the rights of other citizens, or it catches the citizen in an electronic dragnet that doesn't make a distinction between one citizen and another. That the use of yet another device by police is accepted is another hammer blow to civil rights, that's the crime.

If some fool is texting on the highway I'm on and something needs to be done about it, Pop is fairly resourceful, including but not limited to calling John Law to protect my life and property. OTOH, it's a more dangerous condition to me that my fellow Americans seem to accept out of hand that the Police have whatever device they can acquire to monitor and identify behavior that may be illegal or may be a legal precursor to an illegal activity or may be being used by somebody legally and the person who is near the legal user is made suspect because of his vicinity.

Paul Revere rode through the streets alerting the citizenry that an armed force was marching on them. If the redcoats had electronica that indicated his movements and intents they would have blown his brains out. Not equating LE to an armed foreign power, but in the hills above Boston in the 1700's the English were the police.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
JV or someone deleted his post to which I was responding.....

JV, they're playing on the fact that people don't understand how computers, phones etc work. They have no device now and they won't have one as the premise is flawed at its foundation.

Text is sent as data. Phones use multiple data channels depending on the carrier and protocols used. The frequencies are tightly regulated and use a common spectrum so data being sent is sent using the same frequency regardless of if it's texting, web browsing, GPS information, etc. Add to that the issue that voice texting is legal and couldn't be differentiated from manual texting and you begin to see the tip of the iceberg that are the flaws in this idea.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
Having worked in the cellular industry for a few years (MTSO tech/engineer/supervisor) I can tell you you're close, but a bit off. Texts and voice are in the same frequency range (extended cellular -880 to 900MHz) while web browsing and GPS data are passed in the much higher PCS frequency range. So they ARE on different frequencies. You're right though in that orginizations (some LE, some not) are using scanners to read data broadcast by phones. Since the data are on different frequencies the operators of those scanners could differentiate between web surfing and texting. These devices do poll the phones to get the data, but they do not fully emulate cell towers. If they did everyone would have their calls drop around those polling/scanning stations as they would interfere with how calls were delivered and handed off from cell site to cell site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
It's entirely missing the point arguing the viability of a tech that increases police capability to make judgements about the citizens behavior before the citizen has infringed on the rights of other citizens, or it catches the citizen in an electronic dragnet that doesn't make a distinction between one citizen and another. That the use of yet another device by police is accepted is another hammer blow to civil rights, that's the crime.
Maybe I misunderstand you. Are you saying that the scanner is bad or making phones so the don't work when moving is bad?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
I rode motorcycles in he sixties and seventies when you were pretty well assured that if you were on the road the inebriated, maybe including you, were all around you.

Now it's C21 and those odds have been significantly moved toward my survival but moved back some by morons with phones. I survived the previous decades by hook or crook and did not ask for or invite police invasion of privacy to better my odds. Serve and protect is not equal to monitor and preemptively act, at least not in the America Pop grew up in.

It's entirely missing the point arguing the viability of a tech that increases police capability to make judgements about the citizens behavior before the citizen has infringed on the rights of other citizens, or it catches the citizen in an electronic dragnet that doesn't make a distinction between one citizen and another. That the use of yet another device by police is accepted is another hammer blow to civil rights, that's the crime.

If some fool is texting on the highway I'm on and something needs to be done about it, Pop is fairly resourceful, including but not limited to calling John Law to protect my life and property. OTOH, it's a more dangerous condition to me that my fellow Americans seem to accept out of hand that the Police have whatever device they can acquire to monitor and identify behavior that may be illegal or may be a legal precursor to an illegal activity or may be being used by somebody legally and the person who is near the legal user is made suspect because of his vicinity.

Paul Revere rode through the streets alerting the citizenry that an armed force was marching on them. If the redcoats had electronica that indicated his movements and intents they would have blown his brains out. Not equating LE to an armed foreign power, but in the hills above Boston in the 1700's the English were the police.
Very well said.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Are any of you looking at your departments and sheriffs? Our local little sub station has two Humvees sitting out back that where repainted and I guess are now apart of the force. Little further south a deportment is leasing a Armored truck, the huge one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
My question to those who know more...if they did detect that you were using your phone, even if they couldn't tell in what capacity, would that give them enough for probable cause to pull you over and check your phone?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top