[tfecw]

"Then maybe you'll see why your original post was one of the dumbest I've ever seen here."

You’re an ass. Maybe you should go take your aggression out over at DU instead of like minded (and sometimes confused, inarticulate, and occasionally plain wrong) conservatives.

When did i say anything about wiretapping or eavesdropping?

All i was getting at was this was another example of the police having more power that the rest of us ordinary folks (not that that is a completely bad thing). I did see your post before you decided to kick me around this one was, what I assume to be, a sarcastic remark about police being the only ones allowed to own a gun.

Sarcastic, but is it feasible? I wouldn't be too surprised to see it pop up in 50-100 years. Gun rights are a constitutional right as well. That one's clear as day actually, but already folks are redefining that and rewriting grammar rules to work around it. Point of that digression is I don't care if it's lawful for the government to pull your records. It'll be misused in the future.

The article isn't completely clear about how the companies are getting the records. It does appear to be that they are being stolen somehow, but they(the telephony industry) don't know how. Could be a network of fake warrants, corrupt cops, or corrupt judges maybe a combination of the 3. If that is the case, I would the "review and approval by the courts failed."

[flashbunny]

"When did i say anything about wiretapping or eavesdropping?"

Uh, gee, I wonder what this means?

"Funny how no one seems to care that the feds/cops/person with a badge can get these if some guy in a robe says they can have them (presumably with "Just Cause")"

I guess what you meant all depends on the meaning of the word 'is' then.

sheesh.