Cellphone records-is this legal?

www.locatecellphone.com

They will give you the last 100 #'s dialed from a cell or landline...Wow

---

› See More: Cellphone records-is this legal?

"Mike M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

--
Andrew 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).

"Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> --
> Andrew D. Sisson
> LG VX8100
> VZW<BAM<FRONTIER CELLULAR<ROCHESTER TEL. MOBILE
> SID 154 EV-DO PRL 50463
> SINCE APRIL 1993
>

RobR wrote:
> 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.

"RobR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gNKBf.15820$mj3.8225@trndny06...
> 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).
>
> "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mike M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> 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.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew D. Sisson
> > LG VX8100
> > VZW<BAM<FRONTIER CELLULAR<ROCHESTER TEL. MOBILE
> > SID 154 EV-DO PRL 50463
> > SINCE APRIL 1993
> >
>
>

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

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:29:02 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote:

>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.

Anonymous wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:29:02 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
> <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote:
>
>> 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

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?


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:57:06 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Speaking of which, rights are generally bestowed upon PEOPLE. Do
>companies have rights, per se?

Yes -- crept in via the Supreme Court.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Feb 2006
> 17:57:06 -0500,
> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Speaking of which, rights are generally bestowed upon PEOPLE. Do
>>companies have rights, per se?
>
> Yes -- crept in via the Supreme Court.
>
Cite?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:30:52 -0700,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 01 Feb 2006
>> 17:57:06 -0500,
>> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Speaking of which, rights are generally bestowed upon PEOPLE. Do
>>>companies have rights, per se?
>>
>> Yes -- crept in via the Supreme Court.
>>
>Cite?

<http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/freespeech.html>

p.s. Expect to be held to the same standard.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:57:06 -0500, Isaiah Beard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:10:18
-0800, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:57:06 -0500, Isaiah Beard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.

In a deposition, but civil discovery (e.g., documents) cannot be withheld on
just First Amendment grounds.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:16:24 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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/0,10801,72358,00.html>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:18:18
-0800, Anonymous <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:16:24 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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/0,10801,72358,00.html>

Of course -- a Document Retention Order is a routine first step.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>