Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Foreman wrote:(As a side note, the government also has phone monitoring capabilities, but they could probably get your information via other means just as easily. Also, did you know it's possible for them to turn your phone into a monitoring and recording device even when you're not using it? Or EVEN IF IT'S NOT TURNED ON? Check out these articles. They are the most terrifying things I've ever read.)

I'm not sure it was clear, but this isn't just a government capability. Anyone can do it with simple software, as I understand it. Everyone has to check their cell phones at the door before entering meetings where sensitive [government] information is discussed. Because someone outside of our government could turn on their cellphone and listen.

aaahhh let's get rid of cell phones

Cell phones freak me out. When I moved I decided to make my cell phone only for emergencies and I don't give out my number and I only spend about $50 a year putting minutes on it. It's kind of nice to be out of contact with society sometimes.

If you are freaking out about someone eavesdropping through your cell phone, it might help if you changed your mental image of the person listening to you. What if it were Brad Pitt, for example? Natalia (Barbara Carrera) from Condorman works for me.

vorpal blade wrote:If you are freaking out about someone eavesdropping through your cell phone, it might help if you changed your mental image of the person listening to you. What if it were Brad Pitt, for example? Natalia (Barbara Carrera) from Condorman works for me.

So you wouldn't mind the Government listening to our calls if Brad Pitt or Barbara Carrera were president?

the only thing that reassures me is how bored someone would get listening to my phone calls...

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:If you are freaking out about someone eavesdropping through your cell phone, it might help if you changed your mental image of the person listening to you. What if it were Brad Pitt, for example? Natalia (Barbara Carrera) from Condorman works for me.

So you wouldn't mind the Government listening to our calls if Brad Pitt or Barbara Carrera were president?

The implication you were supposed to get is that I wouldn't mind which government was listening to my calls, as long as it was Barbara Carrera in person who was doing the listening. Do you know what Natalia was in Condorman?

Do those Verizon commercials freak anybody else out? The ones that imply that they know exactly what everybody is doing at all times?

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Do those Verizon commercials freak anybody else out? The ones that imply that they know exactly what everybody is doing at all times?

Meh, not really. As Whistler mentioned, most of our actions wouldn't be of interest to anyone outside our immediate circles. The monitoring of phone calls is nothing new, as I understand it, but the biggest challenge has always been filtering through the mundane day-to-day affairs of the airwaves and finding anything that merits the cost of running the search.

Oof, they freak me out. Big Brother, here we come. I don't care if I'm too boring to merit interest or not, the fact that they may or may not have that capability scares me silly.

I don't really care that much if the government wants listen to me. The big thing about cell phones that bothers me is that when you have one, many people assume that you are available to talk them 24 hours a day, especially via texting. At least with a land line people don't assume that you're either dead or you hate them if you don't call them back instantly. Can you tell that I've had a lot of bad experiences with cell phones?

I don't see it as a problem if our government is listening. They can't do that legally without a court order to "wire tap," but the government has too much to do to worry about what you may or may not be saying.

The problem is a stalker or other creep, if he gets a hold of your phone, can download some software onto your phone's chip. This makes it so that his phone rings when your phone rings, so he can pick up and listen to you talk, without you knowing it. Or his phone will ring when you make a call. He can keep track of phone numbers calling you or that you call. He can also call your phone when it is off, turn it on, and listen to whatever conversation you might be having as though you were on speaker phone. The chances are that the government just doesn't care to do that, unless you are a terrorist. But it seems to me that it is more likely to happen if there is some creepy guy who is stalking you. Or you have important secrets that some foreign government wants, or wants to blackmail you with information gathered by listening in to your phone. It is a big problem for our government. This kind of technology can be purchased online and is available to anyone.

But, as NerdGirl says, there are also other inconveniences to cell phones.

vorpal blade wrote:I don't see it as a problem if our government is listening. They can't do that legally without a court order to "wire tap," but the government has too much to do to worry about what you may or may not be saying.

Don't be so sure. It was ruled unconstitutional sure in 2006, but just last year congress voted about whether or not to make the system legal again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they do wiretap and we just don't know it.

You may have a point, Sam. We are dealing with an administration that views with suspicion "rightwing extremists," including "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video ... report.pdf

Not only might the government monitor the cell phones of these suspicious characters, but read their email, determine which sites they look at on the Internet, tap their phone lines, interview their neighbors, review their credit card and bank transactions, scrutinize their tax returns, and harass their employers.

Just goes to show... the same people that thought it was fine for the Bush administration to wiretap without warrants failed to realize that their political opponents would also gain that power. Just last year, Obama (while still a senator) voted for a bill extending the warrantless wiretapping program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washi ... ml?_r=1&hp

In July, 2008 it was clear that President Bush wasn't going to be the president much longer. The handwritting was on the wall that Obama would win the election. Sixty nine senators, including Obama voted in favor of the bill, no doubt knowing who would soon be in power.

vorpal blade wrote:In July, 2008 it was clear that President Bush wasn't going to be the president much longer. The handwritting was on the wall that Obama would win the election. Sixty nine senators, including Obama voted in favor of the bill, no doubt knowing who would soon be in power.

Not to be nitpicky, but it was actually clear in November 2004 that President Bush wouldn't be President in 2009. Pesky 22nd Amendment.

However, if you meant in July 2008 it was clear that Republicans wouldn't hold the Executive Branch much longer, I know exactly what you mean.

Not as clear as it was in September.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Not as clear as it was in September.

Yet, but not as clear as it was in November.

vorpal blade wrote:In July, 2008 it was clear that President Bush wasn't going to be the president much longer. The handwritting was on the wall that Obama would win the election. Sixty nine senators, including Obama voted in favor of the bill, no doubt knowing who would soon be in power.

Those who get into government power somehow always become more authoritarian than they seemed to be before they were elected. Hmm.