Government Demands Apple Unlock Terror Phone. Ignores Service Provider's Data Bank

Beginning To Suspect This is One More Media/Government Campaign to Divert People's Attention

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

02.18.16 12:05 AM ET
Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before
A 2015 court case shows that the tech giant has been willing to play ball with the government before—and is only stopping now because it might ‘tarnish the Apple brand.’
Shane Harris

* * *

[From article]
This is no different, in principle, from the phone company telling the FBI how to tap into an old-fashioned hardwire phone system. In either case, in order to tap into one phone the government needs a search warrant. And one can compare these situations even further, and note that the government never used the power to wiretap to tap into everyone’s phone, only those suspected of crime.
The Fourth Amendment clearly states that government may seize documents and what is today called "data" only if a warrant is issued, a warrant that clearly specifies the place, type of information, and reason for the search.
That does not change in this case. If it is possible for Apple to obtain that one phone the FBI is concerned about, and decode only that phone’s data, then this is still consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and protect all others’ phones. Even if everyone else’s phones can then be decoded, the government must still have a search warrant to obtain the information.
The FBI did not say it wants to decode all phones, just the one owned by the terrorist. This was clearly intended to assist the FBI in only one investigation. If Tim Cook is concerned that then all persons’ phones can be decoded, then one can only point to the situation today where almost anybody -- including the government -- can have their personal records hacked, seized without permission, and used in crime. This is impossible to stop, and eventually may be impossible to stop even with iPhones.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/apples_issue_with_iphone_encryption.html

February 18, 2016
Apple’s Issue with iPhone Encryption
By Michael Bargo, Jr.

Federal Agencies Ignore FOIA, Issue Administrative Orders

[From article]
Nobody knows how many administrative subpoenas are issued by government agencies. Administrative subpoenas are warrants for records such as private “papers” and emails. They are issued unilaterally by government bureaucrats and are impossible to reconcile with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of “oath and affirmation” of “probable cause” before neutral judges.
Watson and The Daily Caller News Foundation have been doing the work that Congress has failed to do in its oversight functions and have issued multiple FOIA requests to various government agencies to get a sense of how many of these subpoenas are issued.
[. . .]
Reporting by the press, it appears, is really what the FTC believes is interfering with its law enforcement activities.
As I’ve written, administrative subpoenas are relics of the Star Chamber, the notoriously secretive and abusive king’s council that the English despised and eventually outlawed in 1641. And unilaterally issued warrants were considered unlawful even before the Fourth Amendment was written.
[. . .]
Administrative subpoenas are frequently used as bureaucratic weapons to punish or intimidate businesses and others. As reported at National Law Journal, one company “put out of business under the weight of a Federal Trade Commission data-privacy investigation is now suing three agency attorneys for allegedly bringing a case based on ‘fictional’ evidence.”
[. . .]
Bureaucrats need to comply with the Fourth Amendment. Warrants require probable cause and oath and affirmation before neutral judges.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/ftc_goes_star_chamber_on_warrant_transparency.html

November 28, 2015
FTC goes 'Star Chamber' on warrant transparency
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

No More Privacy For Medical Records, Including Psychiatry

Any notes made by therapists can and will be revealed to anyone who makes requests under this misguided program. It will enable not only prosecutors to use whatever you reveal to your therapist in court against you, but it will also allow the bureaucrats to divulge the same information to journalists who can humiliate and ridicule you for sport. Hear the loud silent objections from the alleged anti stigma lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatric industry? 



[From article]
Administrative subpoenas are issued unilaterally by government agencies -- meaning without approval by neutral judges -- and without probable cause stated under oath and affirmation as required by the Fourth Amendment. There are now 336 federal statutes authorizing administrative subpoenas, according to the Department of Justice.
[. . .]



In U.S. v Zadeh, the DEA obtained the records of 35 patient files without showing probable cause or obtaining a warrant issued by a judge. Citing New Deal-era case law, Judge Reed O’Connor noted that “[t]he Supreme Court has refused to require that [a federal] agency have probable cause to justify issuance of an administrative subpoena,” and that they may be issued “merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." (Emphasis added).
In other words, the government may now use “fishing expeditions” for medical records.
[. . .]
Only judges may hear oaths necessary to issue warrants. Administrative subpoenas issued unilaterally by bureaucrats and without probable cause directly violate the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/feds_get_the_power_to_seize_medical_records_on_fishing_expedition_investigations_with_no_subpoena_from_a_judge.html

July 20, 2015
Feds Get the Power to Seize Medical Records on 'Fishing Expedition' Investigations with No Subpoena from a Judge
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Revolutionary Promoter of Fourth Amendment

[From article]
John Adams wrote about James Otis’ fiery argument in court against the Writs of Assistance in 1761: “[T]he child independence was then and there born.” A 1783 eulogy poem written by Thomas Dawes described Otis as “first in patriot fame.”
The Writs of Assistance, a method of search and seizure known as “general warrants,” were authorized by Parliament. Otis nevertheless called these institutionalized violations of liberty “illegal.”
[. . .]
Today, the principles of law and liberty argued by Otis are being ignored by America’s soft police state, which uses mass surveillance to violate our property rights and privacy, and other more targeted administrative search and seizure tools to suppress rights of commerce and conscience.
A recent Supreme Court decision shows the judicial disarray on regulation of commerce and principles of the Fourth Amendment at the heart of the famous argument by Otis.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/this_independence_day_we_need_james_otis.html

July 4, 2015
This Independence Day, We Need James Otis
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Massachusetts Judge Tosses Evidence From Random Search of Bus

[From article]
“The detaining of the defendant was unlawful because the officers did not have a reasonable basis to suspect criminal activity by the defendant prior to detaining him on the bus,” Judge Charles J. Hely wrote in an order allowing the suppression of evidence in the case against Gregory Luperon, 27, of Framingham, who is facing a drug trafficking charge after T police say they found the more than 1,200 Oxycodone pills he stashed in the bathroom after realizing officers were going to search the bus.
Luperon’s attorney, Francis Doran Jr., called Hely’s ruling a “victory for freedom.”
“It is more than just five minutes of your time. If you were there on that bus, it is a terror-inspiring tactic,” Doran said of transit cops’ “drug interdiction” searches, during which officers step aboard and warn passengers that a police dog will be checking their bags.
Transit officers randomly searching a Lucky Star bus at the South Station terminal on July 14 say they noticed Luperon acting suspiciously after police announced they would be conducting a “random narcotics sweep,” court documents show.
Luperon allegedly rushed into the bus bathroom and hid 12 bags containing 1,233 Oxycodone pills above the sink before stepping off the bus, police said.
He was arrested after officers who noticed his behavior uncovered the bags.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/05/random_sweeps_violate_passengers_rights_judge_says

Random sweeps violate passengers’ rights, judge says
Ruling brakes T drug bus-ts
Thursday, May 21, 2015
By: Owen Boss, Joe Dwinell
Boston Herald

Threats To The Fourth Amendment

[From article]
Although Americans now live in a soft police state, we may not understand how we got to this point, or why reclaiming the Fourth Amendment is essential to retaining our exceptionalism that flows from freedom. Also, a proposed 21st Century Fourth Amendment introduced in the Virginia General Assembly this year is a model that can restore this Bill of Right to its rightful status.
The Fourth Amendment is quintessentially American even though it is based in English common law. It inherently relies on the separation of powers, but that too comes from the common law, and was forged through centuries-old battles between freedom and tyranny.
[. . .]
Government violates our privacy, especially with its electronic surveillance and arbitrary interception of phone and digital records. The Fourth Amendment, however, is historically and correctly based in property rights and the law of trespass.

Government may engage in acts that otherwise would be trespass when there is imminent risk to persons or property, and that includes “plain-view” violations of the law. There is also a separate reasonable exception for the safety of police officers that daily risk their own security for us. When those reasonable exceptions do not exist, government is supposed to then follow the warrant process of the Fourth Amendment before any search or seizure.
It is of no small irony that government often relies on claims of security in order to violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees of security from government trespass under non-emergency circumstances. Security and good law enforcement, however, begin with law enforcement officials following the law themselves.
[. . .]
Laws are written by one branch, executed by another, and warrants for their lawful enforcement are issued by yet another.
It is of course accepted without question that police departments must obtain warrants from judges, yet federal law enforcement agencies unilaterally issue their own warrants called “administrative subpoenas.” These unilaterally issued warrants institutionalize evasions of probable cause. Even before 9-11, the Drug Enforcement Administration used judge-less warrants to harvest phone records. How can this be?
[. . .]
Institutionalized bureaucratic violations of the Fourth Amendment, however, can be directly traced to the expansion of the administrative state under the New Deal.
The Administrative Procedures Act enacted in 1946, and expanded since, has disemboweled the constitutional separation of powers and guarantee of republican government, giving bureaucratic agencies the power to not merely enforce, but make and adjudicate, laws affecting the public.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/americas_soft_police_state_.html

April 24, 2015
America's Soft Police State
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Wisconsin State Government Malicious Prosecutions Target Conservative Activists

[From article]
Apparently conservatives in Wisconsin are being targeted by officials for working with budget reforms, and their houses are literally being invaded by police and their stuff is carried out right in front of them. And because of some stupid law in the badger state these conservatives are getting no due process and are required to be unconstitutionally silenced.

http://therightscoop.com/dana-loesch-exposes-intimidation-campaigns-against-conservatives-by-wisconsin-officials/

Published on Apr 21, 2015
You Will Not Believe What Is Happening In America Today

Supreme Court Of The United States Permits Police To Violate Fourth Amendment Rights

[From article]
“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, theSupreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil,domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/12/28/supreme-court-rules-8-1-citizens-no-protection-4th-amendment-violations-police-ignorant-law/

Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Citizens Have No Protection Against 4th Amendment Violations by Police Ignorant of the Law
Posted on December 28, 2014

by John W Whitehead

Virginia Writes State Law On Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections

[From article]
The proposed amendment clarifies that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made of our digital data (i.e., e-mails and data stored on computers or cell phones). This is a logical extension of “papers and effects” from James Madison’s 18th-century version.
HJ 578 reverses what is known as the “third-party doctrine” so that people’s data stored in the cloud would be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Since devices the size of birds used to spy on our backyards, fields, and pastures did not exist in the 18th century, the 21st-century Fourth Amendment includes “lands” as being protected.
[. . .]
The Fourth Amendment – not politicians, bureaucrats, or even judges – is what prevents America from becoming a police state. It is law enforcement on law enforcement itself. Gallup polls, however, show that Americans fear their government in record numbers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/21stcentury_fourth_amendment_faces_first_legislative_test_in_virginia.html

January 24, 2015
21st-century Fourth Amendment faces first legislative test in Virginia
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Police, FBI, US Marshals Use New Technology To See Through Walls

First Supreme Court of The United States case was US v Kyllo, which declared thermal imaging was an illegal entry, without a warrant. Yet private criminals can use the same technology and police are clueless and unwilling to stop the same illegal entries. Often when victims complain, the police treat them as if they are insane.



[From article]
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
[. . .]


"The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union's principal technologist. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."
Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."
By then, however, the technology was hardly new. Federal contract records show the Marshals Service began buying the radars in 2012, and has so far spent at least $180,000 on them.
[. . .]


Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
[. . .]
But privacy advocates said they see more immediate questions, including how judges could be surprised by technology that has been in agents' hands for at least two years. "The problem isn't that the police have this. The issue isn't the technology; the issue is always about how you use it and what the safeguards are," said Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Marshals Service has faced criticism for concealing other surveillance tools. Last year, the ACLU obtained an e-mail from a Sarasota, Fla., police sergeant asking officers from another department not to reveal that they had received information from a cellphone-monitoring tool known as a stingray. "In the past, and at the request of the U.S. Marshals, the investigative means utilized to locate the suspect have not been revealed," he wrote, suggesting that officers instead say they had received help from "a confidential source."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

New police radars can 'see' inside homes
Brad Heath USA TODAY 1:27 p.m. EST January 20, 2015

Former Boston Police Supervisor Criticizes Abuses of Search After Marathon Bombing

Nothing  unusual here. Massachusetts police are out of control. That was clear from the revelations of the FBI helping criminals murder citizens who reported crime. Local and state police stood by and remained mute, except for a few extraordinary officers. The honest cops suffered recriminations from their colleagues. One committed suicide. In the aftermath of the marathon bombing police came from everywhere appearing in Watertown with or without jurisdiction. Even Harvard University campus police went there and were given awards by the Boston Celtics. Campus police jurisdiction ends at the property line. But that did not stop the Harvard cowboys from helping with the shootout with the Cambridge terrorist brothers. Massachusetts police and Harvard University police have had me under surveillance and harassed me for over 25 years. No legal reason. They do it because they can. Entire Massachusetts government apparatus stands by showing their relaxed rectitude while criminal police employees abuse a citizen.

[From article]
A former Boston police lieutenant-turned-academic slammed the law enforcement response in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings on Capitol Hill yesterday, saying civil liberties were ignored in the tense search for the suspects that brought the city to a halt.
[. . .]
“What we saw in that aftermath was the unilateral suspension of the United States Constitution, and particularly the Fourth Amendment,” Nolan said.
He said the house-to-house searches and use of military equipment in the April 2013 manhunt for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, unprecedented in recent U.S. history, “was violative of the Constitution and we failed to object.”
He noted that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was ultimately apprehended not through door-to-door searches but when a resident spotted him in a boat and called 911.
[. . .]
Former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis called Nolan’s assertion “outrageous.”
“The comparison (to Ferguson) is actually insulting,” said Davis. “There have been no complaints filed, so the claim that there was some sort of constitutional violation is unsupported. It just isn’t logical.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/kimberly_atkins/2014/11/atkins_ex_cop_bomber_search_violated_constitution
Atkins: Ex-cop: Bomber search violated Constitution

Thursday, November 13, 2014
By: Kimberly Atkins
Boston Herald

U.S. Department Of Justice Reeks of Lawlessness

[From article]
In the 1966 film A Man For All Seasons, which depicts Sir Thomas More’s steadfast disapproval of King Henry VIII’s marital infidelities, More stirringly defends the rule of law. Rebutting his son-in-law, who says he would hypothetically “cut down every law in England” to find the devil, More asks, “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”



More argues that abandoning equal enforcement of the law imperils all citizens. Unfortunately for today’s United States, this is exactly what John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky say the Department of Justice is doing under Attorney General Eric Holder. To this enterprise, Fund brings tireless reporting, and Spakovsky brings his own experience in the Justice Department (as counsel to the assistant attorney for civil rights) and contacts therein.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/no-longer-just/

NO LONGER JUST
BY: Jack Butler
July 20, 2014 5:00 am

Judges Negated Fourth Amendment

[From article]
And in his recent NSA decision, Judge Leon alerted future U.S. historians and students to this: The Bush and Obama administrations, along with compliant Congresses, had not been able to show a "single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature."
Meanwhile, all of us lost our Fourth Amendment rights to personal privacy.
"The judge," according to The New York Times, "wrote that James Madison 'would be aghast' at the degree of privacy invasion the data sweep represents."
[. . .]
Whether or not you agree with this judge, whom I regard as a hero of the Constitution, it's clear that there would not have been a case to judge had it not been for the "leaks" -- the disclosure of so many other government acts of contempt for our personal privacy -- by Edward Snowden, the former contractor for the NSA.
I've already noted that, depending on the candidates for the presidency in 2016, I may write in Snowden for the Oval Office.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff010214.php3#.Uswl8900i6Y

Jewish World Review 

Jan. 2, 2014/ 1 Shevat, 5774 

Are heroes of the Constitution bringing it back?
By Nat Hentoff

NM Police Do Anal Probes, Colonoscopy, After Dog Mistakenly Identifies Drugs on Person

[From article]
David Eckert was pulled over by police in Deming, New Mexico, for failing to come to a complete halt at a stop sign in the Walmart parking lot. He was asked to step out of the vehicle and waited on the sidewalk. Officers decided that they didn’t like the tight clench of his buttocks, a subject on which New Mexico’s constabulary is apparently expert, and determined that it was because he had illegal drugs secreted therein. So they arrested him, and took him to Gila Regional Medical Center in neighboring Hidalgo County, where Mr. Eckert was forced to undergo two abdominal X-rays, two rectal probes, three enemas, and defecate thrice in front of medical staff and representatives of two law enforcement agencies, before being sedated and subjected to a colonoscopy – all procedures performed against his will.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/police-536057-one-carey.html

Published: Nov. 8, 2013 Updated: 2:55 p.m.
Mark Steyn: Better not to tense up around police
By MARK STEYN / Syndicated columnist

Supreme Court Of The US Condones Illegal Searches of Students

[From article]
These searches were conducted without any individually cited suspicions of wrongdoing by any of the students, not to mention total disregard of due process.
[. . .]
The appeals court ruled the school's interest in drug use outweighed Diane's privacy rights. The Supreme Court then refused any further review of the case.
In his dissent of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Brennan roared: "Schools cannot expect their students to learn the lessons of good citizenship when the school authorities themselves disregard the fundamental principles underpinning our constitutional freedoms."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff101613.php3#.UmC7gd00jDo

Jewish World Review
Oct. 16, 2013/ 12 Mar-Cheshvan, 5774
Supreme Court teaches students they're outside constitution
By Nat Hentoff

Give me Your Guns So I Can Put You In A Mental Hospital

Coulter's argument conflicts with the Fourth Amendment. What part of taking liberty without due process does she support? Why is the criminal law standard of mens rea and actus reus not applicable to persons accused of mental illness? Coulter wants to imprison persons for status crimes, and for offensive protected speech. Torrey promotes forced drugging for all persons accused of mental illness. He is spokesman for the psychiatric industry. Blaming liberals for mass murders is as irrational as blaming guns. Like Torrey and many liberals too, Coulter cannot separate crime from psychiatry. She ridicules conduct and speech which she does not like. Is she unaware of what liberals think of her speech? Speech and behavior that psychiatrists do not like or do not understand is declared mental illness. Having a human emotion is mental illness. For Michael Savage liberalism is a mental disorder. For Harvard University's neurologist Allan Counter, being called a racist is a mental illness. Psychiatry is arbitrary personal opinion masquerading as science. What is it about psychiatry that makes ordinarily rational skeptics blind believers? Coulter questions everything to find the kernel of truth. Why is she so accepting of the mumbo jumbo that is psychiatry? It is like law, a system of social control, but lacking due process protections. Hitler and Stalin put undesirable people in jail or mental hospitals after taking their guns. Coulter and Torrey want to do the same but let some people keep their guns. The issue is due process and liberty. Something that Coulter supports on occasion. 

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/18/crazier-than-liberals/

Crazier than liberals
By: Ann Coulter
9/18/2013 06:01 PM

 

Homeland Security Shares Drones With Local Police

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-increasingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

Homeland Security increasingly loaning drones to local police
By Kimberly Dvorak
Washington Guardian
Monday, December 10, 2012

US District Court OKs Warrantless Surveillance Cameras On Private Property

This is a decision by a US Magistrate. It is unlikely to withstand
scrutiny by The Supreme Court.

[From article]
the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously
rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on
warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance
cameras placed on private property without permission.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans'
privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of
concealed surveillance cameras on private property.
by Declan McCullagh
October 30, 2012 10:45 AM PDT

Bio-surveillance Systems Coming From US Government

If organized crime took control of the US Government, what would their policy be regarding high tech surveillance capabilities? Would they reveal that their candidates and office holders are associated with their "family?" If organized crime controlled the two main political parties, would they discredit candidates who are not affiliated with them? What would their policy be regarding giving taxpayer grants to untested corporations? What would be their policy toward regulating volatile financial instruments? Are some prominent journalists affiliated with the same crime families? Does the FBI work with or for crime families? What characteristics are preferred in political candidates, corporate, and academic leaders? Are they as Roger Morris described in Partners in Power, weak persons with relaxed rectitude?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/washingtons-new-massive-snooping-plan-biosurveillance/

WND EXCLUSIVE
WASHINGTON'S NEW MASSIVE SNOOPING PLAN – 'BIOSURVEILLANCE'
Obama to announce 'all-of-nation' strategy in next 120 days
July 31, 2012

High Tech Cameras Can Reveal Personal Information Without Touching

Technology which may be illegal for public officials to use will be used by criminal organizations to do worse harm than police. ACLU does not protect civilians from criminal abuses of private individuals or organizations. In addition though the information obtained by public officials may not be admissible in a court of law it can be "leaked" to journalists who will use it to destroy the career or reputation of the targeted individual. There is little to prevent police or the FBI to obtain the information illegally and then to attribute their find to reliable sources. Technology is amoral. But public spirited humans will always find a evil use for it.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/police-scan-us-soon-well-scan-them/

SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY
POLICE SCAN US – SOON WE'LL SCAN THEM
Nat Hentoff cheers new app that secretly videotapes interactions with law enforcement
WND
Nat Hentoff
July 31, 2012