MetroPCS is the Fedz ???
- Thread starter Shemp
- Start date
- Status
When i switched phones to metroPCS for some reason the person i would be on the phone with could hardly hear me, my voice would be low, yet i could hear them fine. And i would constantly hear a beeping sound every other minute. Tapped? My friends that have metroPCS, their phones sounded fine. For those who said it is run by the feds, give us more info to support that...fucka hearsay LOL 
<3
<3
Ppl..Please not get it twisted
As long as waves can flow through the air....The fedz can tap anyone phone without the company even knowing...Them muthafukkaz is jus that deep buried up in sophisticated technology.....We need to also be smart and aheads of our game......Never,Never,Never underestimate what the feds can do......
As long as waves can flow through the air....The fedz can tap anyone phone without the company even knowing...Them muthafukkaz is jus that deep buried up in sophisticated technology.....We need to also be smart and aheads of our game......Never,Never,Never underestimate what the feds can do......
yes, i've had sum homiez who got busted wit the metro pcs phones.
checc it, if u hav an older metro pcs phone (kyocera models), not tha newer fattier ones, then on tha main screen, hit 111111 and u'll c an option screen cum up. hit okay. then u scroll down and u'll c a "debug" option. hit okay. tha password is 123456 and u can get into this screen. when u get in tha default is on "off". switch it to "basic". that debugs ur phone so tha feds can't tap it. i dunno tha codes for tha newer phones, but that works on tha older kyocera phones. fold.
checc it, if u hav an older metro pcs phone (kyocera models), not tha newer fattier ones, then on tha main screen, hit 111111 and u'll c an option screen cum up. hit okay. then u scroll down and u'll c a "debug" option. hit okay. tha password is 123456 and u can get into this screen. when u get in tha default is on "off". switch it to "basic". that debugs ur phone so tha feds can't tap it. i dunno tha codes for tha newer phones, but that works on tha older kyocera phones. fold.
Whoever said T-Mobile has no credit check has no idea what they're talking about. And yes, T-Mobile is a dealer's dream come true. They gave me MAD gift certificates for selling their shit. If I sell a certain amount this month I'll have 500 in certs next month and 500 in cash too.
As far as these services being run by the feds... I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about... the reason why your homies are getting busted is because they are stupid enough to do their dope business over their cell phones. Look at it from the Law's point of view:
Metro PCS... here's a phone with NO credit check and only works in the bay area and other certain parts of cali (or the georgia market as well). Now, you can only call within northern california, unless you pre-pay for long distance. Sounds like a dealers dream come true, so of COURSE police will be sitting their listening to the air waves zoning in on Metro's lines. Considering most drug dealers have shit for credit and don't want to put a deposit down for the other services. The feds can listen to ANY conversation held over a cell phone. They just know what to look for.
Metro PCS is a great deal if you have no credit and live in the bay. I recommend if you're gonna sell dope, call the people from a landline, or make up codewords. Don't be stupid and do it over your cell phone (and that goes for ANY cell phone). In fact, don't give important numbers either, like your social security, credit card numbers, shit like that. My homeboys dad back in the day had one of those scanners, we were listening to a lot of private info.
By the way, you best believe all my drug dealers I hooked up with a Metro hahaha
As far as these services being run by the feds... I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about... the reason why your homies are getting busted is because they are stupid enough to do their dope business over their cell phones. Look at it from the Law's point of view:
Metro PCS... here's a phone with NO credit check and only works in the bay area and other certain parts of cali (or the georgia market as well). Now, you can only call within northern california, unless you pre-pay for long distance. Sounds like a dealers dream come true, so of COURSE police will be sitting their listening to the air waves zoning in on Metro's lines. Considering most drug dealers have shit for credit and don't want to put a deposit down for the other services. The feds can listen to ANY conversation held over a cell phone. They just know what to look for.
Metro PCS is a great deal if you have no credit and live in the bay. I recommend if you're gonna sell dope, call the people from a landline, or make up codewords. Don't be stupid and do it over your cell phone (and that goes for ANY cell phone). In fact, don't give important numbers either, like your social security, credit card numbers, shit like that. My homeboys dad back in the day had one of those scanners, we were listening to a lot of private info.
By the way, you best believe all my drug dealers I hooked up with a Metro hahaha
AS FAR AS I KNOW...LEGALLY...THE PHONE TAP WOULD BE INADMISSABLE IN COURT UNLESS A FEDERAL JUDGE OR OTHERWISE HAS AUTHORIZED THE TAP ON A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL...NOT A WHOLE LIST OF CUSTOMERS....IF THERE IS NO AUTH FOR THE PHONE TAP IT IS INADMISSABLE IN COURT AS IT WOULD PRACTICALLY BE INVASION OF PRIVACY AS WELL AS ENTRAPMENT.,,,,LEGALLY METRO PCS COULD BE THE FEDS....BUT ALL THE CASES WOULD GET THROWN OUT OF COURT.....MAKES NO SENSE.....THEY COULDNT TAP THE PHONE, EVEN AFTR 9-11 THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL WIRETAP LAW ....SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER RUMOR GONE BAD....LOL
AND TO THE PERSON WHO SAID HE HAS FRIEND(S) BUSTED FROM A METRO PCS PHONE????? IS THERE WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN HIS COURT PAPERS STATING IT WAS DUE TO A WIRETAP OR SURVELLIANCE ...SPCIFICALLY ON HIS CELLY...TO GET YOUR CELLY TAPPED OR MONITORED YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER MAKIN POWER MOVES.....ALONG THE LINES OF PABLO ESCOBAR...ETC.....THEY AINT TRYIN TO BUST A 19 YEAR OLD FOR SELLIN DIME BAGS.....CMON NOW BE REAL....
lmao @ MOE COMENT...."YOU GOT BOMB"????? HAD ME DYIN ON THAT ONE
AND TO THE PERSON WHO SAID HE HAS FRIEND(S) BUSTED FROM A METRO PCS PHONE????? IS THERE WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN HIS COURT PAPERS STATING IT WAS DUE TO A WIRETAP OR SURVELLIANCE ...SPCIFICALLY ON HIS CELLY...TO GET YOUR CELLY TAPPED OR MONITORED YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER MAKIN POWER MOVES.....ALONG THE LINES OF PABLO ESCOBAR...ETC.....THEY AINT TRYIN TO BUST A 19 YEAR OLD FOR SELLIN DIME BAGS.....CMON NOW BE REAL....
lmao @ MOE COMENT...."YOU GOT BOMB"????? HAD ME DYIN ON THAT ONE
Yeah they started the F.T.M.T.F. (Federal Text Message Task Force) to sit there and scan all text messages from all the Metro PCS customers to stop all the drug dealing in the United States...also all regular phones are taped, as well as email, fax and standard US Mail. All houses have been bugged too.....and the cops are watching EVERYONE.....BY THE WAY THE FEDS ARE PROBABLY WATCHING THIS WEBSITE SO PLEASE DONT TALK ABOUT ANY ILLEGAL THINGS ON HERE OR ALL OF OUR HOUSES WILL GET RAIDED.....
ROFLMMFAO.............
ROFLMMFAO.............
FEDERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 2001(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection 9c) of this section whoever-- (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Punishment.-- The punishment for an offense under sub section (a) of this section is-- (1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advan- tage, malicious destruction or damages, or private commercial gain-- (A) a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years or both for an subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and (2) a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both in any other case. Section 2702. Disclosure of Contents (a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)-- (1) a person or entitle providing an electronic communication ser- vice to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and (2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to he public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service-- (A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmis- sion from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; and (B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing. (b) Exceptions.--A person or entity may divulge the contents of a communication --- (1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient; (2) as otherwise authorized in section 2516, 2511(2)(a) or 2703 of this title; (3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service; (4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are sued to forward such communication to its destination; (5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; or (6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents-- (A) were inadvertently obtained by service provider; and (B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime. ******* REPORT LANGUAGE Proposed section 2701 provides a new criminal offense. The offense consists of either: (1)intentionally accessing, without authorization, a facility through which an electronic communication service is pro- vided or (2) intentionally exceeding the authorization of such faci- lity. In addition, the offense requires that the offender must, as a result of such conduct, obtain, alter, or prevent unauthorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic stor- age in such a system. The term electronic storage is defined in sect- ion 2510(17) of Title 18. Electronic storage means any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof and the storage of such commu- nication by an electronic communications service for the purpose of back-up protection of such communication. Section 2701(a) makes it an offense intentionally to access without authorization, or to exceed an authorization to access, an electronic communication service and thereby obtain, later or prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system. This provision addresses the growing problem of unauthorized persons deliberately gaining access to, and sometimes tampering with, electronic or wire communication that are not intended to be available to the public. *******(emphasis added)**** The Committee recognizes however that some electronic communicatio ser- vices offer specific features, sometimes known as computer "electronic bulletin boards," through which interested person may communicate openly with the public to exchange computer programs in the public domain and other types of information that may be distributed without legal constraint. It is not the intent to hinder the development or use of "electronic bulletin boards" or other comparable services. The Committee believes that where communications are readily accessible to the general public, the sender has, for purposes of Section 2701(a), extended an "author- ization" to the public to access those communications. A person may reasonably conclude that a communication is readily accessible to the general public if the telephone number of the system and other means of accesses are widely known, and if a person does not, in the course of gaining access, encounter any warnings, encryptions, password re- quests or other indication of intended privacy. To access a communi- cation on such a system should not be a violation of the law. Some communication systems offer a mixture of services, some, such as bulletin boards, which may be readily accessible to the general public, while others -- such as electronic mail -- may be intended to be con- fidential. Such a system typically has two or more distinct levels of security. A user may be able to access electronic bulletin boards and the like merely with a password he assigns to himself, while access to such features as electronic mail ordinarily entails a higher level of security (i.e., the mail must be addressed to the user to be accessible specifically). Section 2701 would apply differently to the different services. These wire or electronic communications which the service provider attempts to keep confidential would be protected, while the statute would impose no liability for access to feature configured to be readily accessible to the general public. ****** Section 2702 specifies that a person or entity providing wire or elec- tronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended addressee or intended recipient of such communication. The committee emphasizes that "lawful consent" in this context, need not take the form of a formal written document of consent. A grant of consent electronically would protect the service provider from liability for disclosure under section 2702. Under various circumstances, consent might be inferred to have arisen from a course of dealing between the service provider and the customer or subscriber -- e.g. where a history of transactions between the parties offers a basis for a reasonable understanding that a consent to disclosure attaches to a particular class of communica- tions. Consent may also flow from a user having had a reasonale basis for knowing that disclosure or use may be made with respect to a com- munications, and having taken action that evidences acquiescence to such disclosure or use -- e.g. continued use of such an electronic com- munication system. Another type of implied consent might be inferred from the very nature of the electronic transaction. For example, a subscriber who places a communication on a computer "electronic bull- etin board," with a reasonable basis for knowing that such communica- tions are freely made available to the public, should be considered to have given consent to the disclosure or use of the communication. If conditions governing disclosure or use are spelled out in the rules of an electronic communication service, and those rules are available to users or in contracts for the provision of such services, it would be appropriate to imply consent on the part of a user to disclosures or uses consistent with those rules. Section 2702(a) specifies that a person or entity providing a wire or electronic communication service or remote computer services to the public shall not knowingly divulge the contents of any communication while in electronic storage by that service to any person or entity other than the addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient of the communica- tions. Under some circumstances, however, a customer for or subscriber to a wire or electronic communication service may place a commnication on the service without specifying an addressee. The Committee in tends, in that situation, that the communication at a minimum be deemed ad- dressed to the service provider for purposes of Section 2702(b). Be- cause an addressee may consent to the disclosure of a communication to any other person, a service provider or system operator, as imputed address, may disclose the contents of an unaddressed communication. A person may be an "intended recipient" of a communication, for purpose of section 2702, even if he is not individually identified by name or otherwise. A communication may be addressed to the members of a group, for example. In the case of an electronic bulletin board, for instance, a communication might be directed to all members of a previously formed "special interest group" recipients.
- Status