|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Murder investigation method /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1633618969 Message started by Eegore on 10/07/21 at 08:02:49 |
|
Title: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/07/21 at 08:02:49 In this scenario you have had a close family member murdered, let's say a wife/sister/child. Take a second, if you never have, to think about the results of that type of immediate loss. Also you are not a suspect, however a co-worker or friend of your murdered family member is a suspect. Would it be reasonable, to you, for law enforcement to have warrants that access local internet searches? For instance anyone looking up your address, work/school, etc. Researching your life online, looking up ways to hide a body and such. Would you be ok with law enforcement having a warrant that could find people that were looking up your relative prior to their murder? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/13/21 at 09:43:28 Nobody has an opinion about law enforcement checking a potential murderer's internet search history by means of local search term analysis? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Serowbot on 10/13/21 at 10:23:41 I think they should need some evidence to present to a judge before being granted a warrant. What level of evidence is debatable, but more than he/she looks suspicious or I never liked them much. What say yee? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/13/21 at 12:02:19 however a co-worker or friend of your murdered family member is a suspect. Since this is your hypothetical, what makes them a suspect? A Judge should consider that answer before granting a broad warrant. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/13/21 at 13:13:26 "I think they should need some evidence to present to a judge before being granted a warrant. What level of evidence is debatable, but more than he/she looks suspicious or I never liked them much." This would be normal warrant procedures, so the amount of evidence needed for any other type of search warrant. An LEO could not say he never liked the victim's co-worker much and get that approved. "Since this is your hypothetical, what makes them a suspect? A Judge should consider that answer before granting a broad warrant." Evidence. Witness saw them together, video footage of them in the same area at the same time, they keep showing up at her work IF they are NOT a co-worker. They show up at her house uninvited if they are a co-worker, etc. Reports from others indicating suspicious behavior I believe counts as well. Webstermark brings up the second part of this discussion, broader search warrants. Are internet searches actually private? If somebody was searching for your wife/daughter's address, her work address, "how to hide a body", "how to conceal DNA evidence" etc. Would you be ok if law enforcement secured a warrant to look for those internet searches? Or would you lean more towards them not being able to engage in internet search history warrants? This of course means its less likely the person who killed your family would be caught. This would be similar to getting threatening phone calls at all hours and the police being able to trace the calls by searching all phones that dialed your number. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/14/21 at 03:53:15 It’s not the same as getting threatening phone calls. Internet search by somebody does not interfere with you directly. You don’t know its happening, but you know when somebody calls your house and makes threats. That’s not a valid example. Two thoughts. Number one, hypotheticals like this are difficult because in real world situation actual emotions come in to play. Just like there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, if police are investigating a murder of a close family member, whatever thoughts you have about constitutional privacy get thrown out the window. This is a case of being too close to the situation. Two, if it’s a legitimate suspect, sure the police should be able to search Internet searches. I think that’s commonly done now. But no, Internet searches are not public information, they are private. We should not allow government authorities to do a broad investigation into Internet searches looking for suspicious searches and then based on that, prying into someone’s personal life. That’s not law-enforcement. If you want to do that, simply suspend the fourth amendment and get rid of maybe 75% of all crime. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/14/21 at 04:51:04 As a follow up, are you in favor of the IRS scanning through bank records of transactions over $600 looking for patterns of tax fraud and then launching an investigation? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/14/21 at 05:36:53 It’s not the same as getting threatening phone calls. Internet search by somebody does not interfere with you directly. You don’t know its happening, but you know when somebody calls your house and makes threats. That’s not a valid example. Murder interferes with you directly, so my intended comparison is murder to threatening phone calls. If we can check caller data pools to see who called you, why can't they check internet searches to see who was looking up your address and how to hide a body? "Two thoughts. Number one, hypotheticals like this are difficult because in real world situation actual emotions come in to play. Just like there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, if police are investigating a murder of a close family member, whatever thoughts you have about constitutional privacy get thrown out the window. This is a case of being too close to the situation." I see your point so maybe I should have presented it as somebody else's family. "We should not allow government authorities to do a broad investigation into Internet searches looking for suspicious searches and then based on that, prying into someone’s personal life. That’s not law-enforcement. If you want to do that, simply suspend the fourth amendment and get rid of maybe 75% of all crime." Ok that answers my question. I think if a human is killed, it is ok to search for people who might have done it, which to me includes internet searches. If they went to the local Courthouse and did it there I imagine the video footage, witness accounts etc. would be admissible, but for some reason that exact searching behavior online is different. Physical searching by driving around is somehow different than doing it from your phone. "As a follow up, are you in favor of the IRS scanning through bank records of transactions over $600 looking for patterns of tax fraud and then launching an investigation?" I do think the $600 is too low of a number, other than that I am indifferent to it as I don't cheat on my taxes. If the IRS wants to investigate people who do not claim reportable and only the word reportable with the exemption of all other know words - "Reportable income" and exclusively reportable income and not imagined scenarios of taxing losses, then go ahead. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/14/21 at 07:21:16 I do think the $600 is too low of a number, other than that I am indifferent to it as I don't cheat on my taxes. If the IRS wants to investigate people who do not claim reportable and only the word reportable with the exemption of all other know words - "Reportable income" and exclusively reportable income and not imagined scenarios of taxing losses, then go ahead. So because you’ve got nothing to hide, privacy isn’t a concern to you? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by MnSpring on 10/14/21 at 07:37:41 Quote:
Another follow up. Are you in favor of a neighbor, relative, Police, Judge, Caseworker, Nurse, Doctor, etc, etc, etc, Saying, 'That Person has Hundreds of GUNS, and Thousands rounds of ammunition. And they are Crazy, so you must take it all away. ? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/14/21 at 07:42:30 So because you’ve got nothing to hide, privacy isn’t a concern to you? I think if I choose to use a FICO banking structure I agree to the contracts contained within, which includes reporting gains, and only gains, as reportable income. Don't put your money into institutions like that if you want actual privacy, use alternatives this is exactly why they were invented. The people getting around this - they aren't complaining, they are doing something about it. Did you go sign and send the documentation I provided to fight this? Anyone that thinks the IRS should break the law by ignoring reportable income, for any reason, is barking up the wrong tree. Change the reportable income, stop expecting law enforcement to ignore law. It's like all the people complaining about a section of highway that went from 65mph to 55mph in one small section and back to 65mph. It was an easy ticket spot for LEO and people complained that cops were giving tickets, for speeding. For actual speeding. So we got with the DOT had them put up mileage average line studies and got the speed limit reduction removed. So much more effective than complaining that the cops write tickets. So to the original topic: Would it be reasonable for law enforcement to search camera footage for all vehicles that were in the area of a murder? I think so, but I don't know where the change to digital impacts the ability to investigate. If someone is digitally searching for an address, or physically searching, how do we decide when the internet search is protected? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/14/21 at 07:46:27 "Are you in favor of a neighbor, relative, Police, Judge, Caseworker, Nurse, Doctor, etc, etc, etc, Saying, 'That Person has Hundreds of GUNS, and Thousands rounds of ammunition. And they are Crazy, so you must take it all away. ?" The answer is still the same. No any person should not be able to just say "Crazy" and have all guns taken away. If I see actual legislation that says any person can just call someone "Crazy" and have their guns taken away I will disagree with it. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by MnSpring on 10/14/21 at 08:29:08 * 7555575F4255300 wrote:
Does, 'double negative' come into play with that statement ? Remove the word, 'no', and the word, 'not'. See what it now says. "... Using two negatives usually turns the thought or sentence into a positive one. Double negatives are generally discouraged in English because they are considered to be poor grammar and they can be confusing. ..." Some 'double negatives' listed below, as per: https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html The evidence is certainly not irrefutable. This gem is not uncommon. The results are not inconclusive. His rebuttal was clearly not nonsensical. The price of the car is not insignificant. It is not unnecessary to tell the truth all the time. The new disease wasn't non-infectious. He wasn't irresponsible about his duties. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/14/21 at 10:09:54 Does, 'double negative' come into play with that statement ? Remove the word, 'no', and the word, 'not'. See what it now says. I will however it will convey the opposite of what I intended to say: "Any person should be able to just say "Crazy" and have all guns taken away." I mean to say, No. "Any person" should not be able to just say "Crazy" and have all guns taken away. To make it more clear: No is my answer to MnSpring's question. My perception is that "Any Person" - as in any known human, should not be able to say the word "Crazy" as an evaluation of another human and have that other human's guns taken away. This action as described should not happen. When I see actual legislation like this I will disagree with it. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/14/21 at 10:56:27 Would it be reasonable for law enforcement to search camera footage for all vehicles that were in the area of a murder? I think so, but I don't know where the change to digital impacts the ability to investigate. If someone is digitally searching for an address, or physically searching, how do we decide when the internet search is protected? I think what you’re talking about is the expectation of privacy. Driving on a public road doesn’t carry an expectation of privacy. Right now anyway, internet searches and websites should carry some amount of an expectation of privacy. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/14/21 at 11:41:27 I think what you’re talking about is the expectation of privacy. Driving on a public road doesn’t carry an expectation of privacy. Right now anyway, internet searches and websites should carry some amount of an expectation of privacy. I agree with the expectation of privacy however I never really thought of my internet activities to be private since they require outside resources to be usable. I use Comcast services so my assumption is that they have access to everything I am doing since it passes through their network, unless I take significant steps to hide it. I can see where some concerns of 4th Amendment issues arise if one thinks their internet activity is private. Of course this would have to be personally purchased internet versus Public or Work internet usage. For instance if I search p0rn at work, I would get fired. They, since I am on their network, can look at everything I do online. So in theory if I search someone's address at work I should not expect that to be my private search. Taking expectation of privacy into account should, with a warrant, law enforcement be able to analyze public wifi and business internet searches? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/15/21 at 13:27:52 I would not imagine public assessable Internet services are private but I would expect privately paid for Internet services are private. Private in the sense that it would require a warrant for search. I expect my private phone calls to be just that private. But I would be suspicious of a payphone, assuming you could find one. I expect my cell phone calls to be private although I fully understand how far easier to snag out of the airstream but nonetheless, from the government point of view, I expect them to be private. And certainly a company has the right to restrict Internet usage on company time or company property. That makes sense and I don’t object to that. When I wanna look at porn online, I hack into Serowbot’s computer and use that. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/15/21 at 14:27:09 I would not imagine public assessable Internet services are private but I would expect privately paid for Internet services are private. Private in the sense that it would require a warrant for search. I agree. My question specifically is not searching "Suspect A's" internet activity but doing a blanket search looking for any searches that have the address of the victim etc. I expect my private phone calls to be just that private. But I would be suspicious of a payphone, assuming you could find one. I expect my cell phone calls to be private although I fully understand how far easier to snag out of the airstream but nonetheless, from the government point of view, I expect them to be private. My understanding is that law enforcement needs a warrant to listen to the actual conversation, but no warrant is required to access what numbers you dialed and the duration of those calls. So in parallel I would say law enforcement could see if you use the internet but not the content, unless they had a warrant. But where does search content fit it? Is it the equivalent of the words used in a phone call? Looking at emails, law enforcement needs a warrant to get unopened emails that are less than 180 days old, however they can obtain opened email as well as unopened emails that are at least 180 days old with only a subpoena as long as they notify the person whose email they've requested. But they can't just run a blanket search, from what I know, across all emails in a "cloud" to search for specific words. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Serowbot on 10/15/21 at 15:33:06 605255444352457A56455C370 wrote:
Yer' welcome... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by MnSpring on 10/15/21 at 16:17:17 6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:
Yet a civilian can, listen, record, use, something which most people believe is private. And which the developers of, Siri/Axexa/or like, say cannot happen, is perfectly OK ? 0525272F3225400 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/15/21 at 16:35:26 Yet a civilian can, listen, record, use, something which most people believe is private. And which the developers of, Siri/Axexa/or like, say cannot happen, is perfectly OK ? You can elect to disclose information recorded on those devices. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by MnSpring on 10/15/21 at 17:43:06 1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:
Having never set up one of those devices, (Axexa/Siri/etc) I did not know part of questions asked were; ‘Do you want to have the recording of everything you and anyone else says, made available to anyone, for any purpose’ (or something like that) How convenient. No need for a warrant. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/17/21 at 04:50:55 My understanding is that law enforcement needs a warrant to listen to the actual conversation, but no warrant is required to access what numbers you dialed and the duration of those calls.. Is that true? |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by Eegore on 10/17/21 at 12:13:04 "Is that true?" Yes. Smith v Maryland ruled that Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers you dialed or dialed you. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/442/735.html The The Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows this as well. So law enforcement can't listen to the content of a conversation without a warrant, but they can get a list in real-time of all your calls and durations as long as they can show they are relevant to the investigation. So with internet searches, is the search content equal to phone call speech? Or texts? Should they be able to see what you searched but not what you looked at? Should they only be able to know you use the internet but not why? It's harder than it sounds to make solid comparisons to emails, texts, phones, internet unless we just say it is all always private and nobody can ever know what I use my phone/internet for. That of course leverages everything towards easing criminal conduct. |
|
Title: Re: Murder investigation method Post by WebsterMark on 10/18/21 at 04:56:48 Didn’t know that. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |