Talk:Trap and trace device

The article sais that pen registers and Talk/Trap devices are similar enough to be considered the same thing. I have a problem with that in the fact that the pen register determines who the "suspect" is calling and the Talk/Trap determines who is calling the "suspect". These are two vastly different ideas and should bring up a debate of legality with regards to the Talk/Trap device. With the need for a warrant to run a wiretap operation (except in the case that one party consents to the wire tap) are the "third party" callers, who have nothing to do with the investigation, afforded any rights by the U.S. constitution. This argument is of course aimed at the U.S. government because of the gross and public abuse of the U.S. Patriot act.

Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.247.161 {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 11:03, 21 March 2007

Comment:

I definitely DO NOT think this article should be merged with "lawful interception" because it would assume that all trap and trace actions are lawful and that is quite obviously wrong. - (RBP)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.67.13 {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 17:03, 1 December 2009

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trap and trace device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305022104/http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/PatriotAct.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/PatriotAct.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)