Boston Police action due to cell phone conversation

eeeewwwww. for real?

No source?

I heard it on the radio, a call on-air between a DJ and a caller, and now I'm telling you about it. I haven't heard it anywhere else, but I'll see if it might have been put on the radio's website, (I doubt it) or maybe in the morning paper when I pick one up today. Do you think I'm making it up?

Oh.

Since he was not arrested and no reporter was there, I don't see what kind of actual source there might be besides the listeners of that station at that time, but I'll look.
It was really something, though. The guy's voice was shaky and he was scared, couldn't believe what happened; just because he was talking about a bomb threat on his cell phone, he was treated as if he made a bomb threat. Bizarre.
I don't think people expected that their cell phone conversations would be monitored. A private telephone conversation in one's own car. Yikes.

I doubt this is really accurate. First of all I don't think the cops could have found him via his cell phone when responders cannot accurately triangulate people calling 911 from cell-phones who need emergency assistance. If this sophisticated equipment were available, you can bet your bottom dollar the Boston Police wouldn't have it, the fibbies would keep it all to themselves. Secondly, the guy could have made the original cell call to the station, said "bomb threat" and then got pissed when he was pulled over and searched and fabricated the story of the police invading his civil rights. It could have been a coincidence that the cops stopped and searched him. What if the cops heard the radio station call (on the radio?) and guesstimated the vicinity of said driver and decided to stop and search vehicles there? Chances are they would not find the guy who called in but chances are they might especially if he was still hanging around.

I don't think so. It could have been a state trooper, actually. I just know the guy was pulled over in Boston. We do have the technology to monitor cell phone calls (Even I could do it) but does that mean it should be done? The police told him they pulled him over because they heard him talking about a bomb threat, he said.

It's much more likely that he had his window down and someone on in another car or on the sidewalk heard him talking and reported him than anyone tapping in on his cell conversation.

Boston has been crawling with undercover cops all week. Several cops from my town have been in Boston and Cambridge all week playing parking lot attendant or just walking streets and other towns were provided bodies too.

So if what this caller reported is true, it seems that everyone here believes that spying on cell phone converstaions is an outrage, then?

I don't know if I'd say "outraged" but I don't believe random monitoring of cell phones is legal or that the police could do anything against anyone with a random intercept. (The Patriot Act , referred to in your opening post, doesn't make a provision for allowing random monitoring either..)

I dunno, Fishin'...
The PATRIOT ACT Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists. (All they would have had to do is get a blanket permission slip to do this during the DNC)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
When we decide, however, to expand surveillance powers to track terrorists, all residents, not just the terrorists, are affected.
Section 206
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) facilitates domestic intelligence gathering related to foreign powers by allowing the collection of such information without the legal restrictions associated with domestic law enforcement. Section 206 of the Patriot Act modernizes FISA wiretap authority. Previously, FISA required a separate court order be obtained for each communication carrier used by the target of an investigation. In the era of cell phones, pay phones, e-mail, instant messaging, and BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices such a requirement is a significant barrier in monitoring an individual's communications. Section 206 allows a single wiretap to legally "roam" from device to device, to tap the person rather than the phone. In 1986, Congress authorized the use of roaming wiretaps in criminal investigations that are generally subject to stricter standards than FISA intelligence gathering, so extending this authority to FISA was a natural step.

The main difference between roaming wiretaps under current criminal law and the new FISA authority is that current criminal law requires that law enforcement "ascertain" that the target of a wiretap is actually using a device to be tapped. Section 206 contains no such provision. Ensuring that FISA wiretaps only roam when intelligence officials "ascertain" that the subject of an investigation is using a device, before it is tapped, would prevent abuse of this provision. For example, without the ascertainment requirement, it is conceivable that all the pay phones in an entire neighborhood could be tapped if suspected terrorists happened to be in that neighborhood. Bringing FISA roaming wiretaps in line with criminal roaming wiretaps would prevent such abuse and provide greater protection to the privacy of ordinary Americans.

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/podesta.html

Today the United States has at least 130 million cell phone users. All are subject to increasingly precise tracking. The infrastructure that supports such tracking has evolved rapidly through a series of technical, legal, and political mutations, all stemming from the choices of highly interested actors. The resulting configuration of laws, networks, and corporate interests determines who is able to use the phone system to gather information about the mobility, not only of individuals, but of the population as a whole.
It is worth taking a hard look at how those choices were made, and who gained and who lost from them.

Taken together, changes invisible to ordinary citizens have moved us into a world where all mobile phone users are potentially subject to precise monitoring. Specialized location systems pinpoint calls. Specialized database systems collect and distribute that data. laws and regulations governing police surveillance are justified by reference to standard industry practice. Federal law, FCC rulings, and legal decisions all make it relatively easy for police to request information that is "reasonably available" or "accessible" to the telecommunications provider. Once a type of information has been deemed to be "reasonably accessible" under certain technological and industrial configurations, police agencies have successfully promulgated mandates to require that information to remain available, even as those configurations change.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp04/phillips.htm

heeven, check this out:
http://accelerated-promotions.com/consumer-electronics/cellular-interception.htm
Also, the radio station was WAAF, 107.3, if anybody feels the need to call and ask about the call. It was around 3:30 PM. I think the DJ was "NeanderPaul". I rarely listen to the station because I generally hate their politics, but I happened to be roaming around looking for good tunes to get me through 495 NB with my sanity intact.

Your own post there explains it quite well and points out exactly why I think the guys claim is bogus.

Even with the Patriot Act they STILL have to have authorization BY NAME to tap the lines. Once they have that they can listen in on any phone the person may use but it only allows for that ONE PERSON's conversations to be monitored. The Patriot Act doesn't create any provision that allows for mass monitoring of every cell phone conversation which is what they would have had to have been doing to pick up a random call from this guy.

Is monitoring cell phone conversations the same thing as internet usage? On the internet, everything we type, read, and subscribe to is traceable. Isn't is known that we have no control over anyone (including government and police) tracing our internet movements - if they really wanted to? We are not initially told that this is a possibility when we first sign on with an ISP or DSL provider and start to surf the net. With cell phones, could it become the same? Who owns the towers and satellites that are used to power these cell-phones? Could there be an unwritten right for them to use the information they "hear" however they please or even share this information and give access to government agencies? The fact that we were never made aware of it doesn't make it so. It could be argued that using wireless technology means that it is a frequency, much like radio, where the airwaves can be intercepted and therefore not subject to as much privacy as is assumedly given to a land-line.

I am not happy with the idea of anyone (other than those I am intentionally communicating with) listening in or using my internet, cell-phone, home phone usages to find out information about me - but in this "open" technological age, I am not sure that I have the power to stop it.

They can trace the area that a car is driving in too the foot. What makes you think that they cant do the same with cell phones. I believe that some 911 systems can do just that. It is just a short jump to accessing voice communication. So be carefull what you say about Bush. If you say something that the government considers a threat to the president you could end up in jail.

Indeed it is possible. Fishin' is apparently more trusting of the government than I am. I believe this story is true because I heard his voice while he was telling it.
We have the capability, and it was during the DNC, which most Americans expected to be a plausible time and place for a terrorist attack. It is not beyond belief that a blanket monitoring of cell-phone usage (among other things, perhaps) was undertaken.
I was wrong, it is actually Sec. 218, not 213, which allows surveillance of cell phones and Internet communications. Section 218 loosens the standard of a FISA investigation by requiring a showing that the collection of foreign intelligence information is "a significant purpose" rather than "the purpose" of an investigation. (A significant purpose being, it is the DNC, a terrorist might be plotting something Let us spy on everyone to protect them). Section 218 is an important tool for counterterrorism but, since probable cause is not required under FISA, it also raises the possibility that U.S. citizens who are not terrorists could have their homes (or cars) searched and communications monitored without probable cause. It seems that this type of action would fall under the allowable "sneak-and-peak" searches, which require neither notification to those investigated, nor any "probable cause" threshold.
The guy might be lying, but I don't believe he was.
And this is a righty radio station, for what that's worth.

Huh? Maybe you've been watching too many movies. Do you know what happens when you call 911 on a cell phone? They have to ask you where you are so they know. Newer cell phones have GPS chips in them for 911 operators to be able to track down cell phone callers in case they can't speak.

Your average police car does not carry the equipment to listen in on a converstaion and track down the source. They just don't have the tech.

If you have a source for this tech., please share it with the rest of us.

I posted one already, McG. And I doubt it was the average police car that was put into play during the DNC for this purpose. I'm always surprised when people question that we have and use technology such as this. I mean, think about all that this country has already accomplished in the fied of technology, medicine, space exploration, etc. You can be seen by satellite at your keyboard if someone wanted you to be.

I am not surprised at the story and I don't see a reason to question it.

I have just accepted that it is a reality that everything we say cell phones and type on the internet is subject to others listening in. I just ignore it and say what I want and if for some reason I get arrested, I will just use that opportunity to tell those in charge what I think of them and tell I am just a housewife with opinions and if this is what kind of America you all want then I don't know what to say other than I don't like it.

I don't expect that in this day and age that we can really repeal all the patriot act practically speaking. However, I do think that we need to get people in charge who has sense and don't go all to pieces when someone just says the word "bomb" in a conversation or says "I hate Bush and wish he wasn't in the white house."

Lets see if they don't come and arrest me for saying what I just said. tune in tomorrow...

Mc G
Why do you tihink the CIA states that they have intercepted cell phone calls by terroists and think that they are going to attack this place or that place. Do your own looking for verification. I have On Star in my car and they can tell exactly where I am at any time. On Star is a cell phone operation. Try checking things out before you poo paugh other peoples posts. And some 911 operations can track cell phone calls and some cant. Depends on what kind of technology you have.