• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

drug deals via technology...safe?

I got the same type of response as you, Fry-d-.

When I wanted to confirm my phone was tapped I asked my Optus account manager about it. They are not permitted to tell you whether your phone is tapped or not but she did find out a few other facts for me. The big telco's literally have employees whose main role is to liase with police etc to help with investigations. If the police want something specific they can get it. She couldn't tell me specifically what information was held in house but the right technician could source extensive amounts of your sms history.

But you just have to be relative about your situation. If you're a small fry the police are not going to waste thousands of dollars tracking down an sms where you may have ambiguously sounded like you were selling something.

If you do like to help your friends out every now and then a general rule of thumb, when text messaging, would be assuming your phone is actually tapped and being ridiculously ambiguous or use dumb code names.
 
I have experience in this area, and pharmaceuticals, if you order from the "non-scammer" sites, gernerally work very very well... On the other hand, illicut drugs... you have to be care...

amount, type of drug, type of packaging/concealing have a lot to do with it. Also MSN and AIM is a big no no... you might consider using an encrypted messsaging program or even mIRC to be on the safe(er) side.
 
FYI on sms's. As I've stated I personally know of a case where it was the number of sms's, not the content of them, that was used as evidence to convict.

So for us end users the threat isn't probably as bad. But if your go-to guy is getting 100s or 1000s of sms's a month its hard to explain!
 
Also saying "I just bought 200 pills" means shit unless they catch you with drugs in hand, it's all hearsay until then. Don't panic, thanks to Australia's civil liberties there is high benchmark set for what constitutes as evidence.
Click to expand...
That is not technically correct. Out of court statements against interest are an exception to the hearsay rule. Trials are run all the time using intercepted telecommunications as evidence of what an accused person said and therefore assumed to have done. It is admissible because the theory goes that a person would not say something against their interest unless it were true.

I think that more than likely an admission about being in possession of drugs is not going to result in a prosecution for possession. However, in most states the drug laws include offences of selling or supplying, or offering to sell or supply. Charges are brought regularly where the only evidence of an offence is simply a person offering to supply a particular drug to a person over their intercepted phone. The call is recorded, the call is played in court, the evidence is admissible, and a guilty verdict is likely.

Our convoluted and complex laws of evidence have been formulated over 200 years of English and Australian law. Civil liberties have nothing much to do with many of the rules, particularly the hearsay rule.

The courts have traditionally rejected illegally obtained evidence for public policy reasons, and that to a degree is a product of the need to preserve our civil liberties and not condone illegal conduct of authorities. However, even then there are exceptions to the rule, and illegally obtained evidence can be admitted on occasion after weighing up a number of factors.
 
Biscuit informative as always, good to see you about :)
 
I use codes in sms, I actually sat and talked to my dealer to ask them what they prefered me to do, that way if they get nicked im not to blame for doing what thay asked, so far its working.

Im pretty sure I know how to use the phrase Inadmissable in court to! information can only be garnered leagally and any invasion of privacy without due consent or authorisation is illegal, if you are unlucky enough to get busted buying a couple of bags of lemons down the corner store, or out browsing for a new car, maybe a mitsubishi...... then make sure you get all the relevant warrant documentation and a copies of all the information the investigator has on you as he is bound by law to share this information with you, trust me I know.
 
I fail to see how receiving a hundred or thousand text messages a month would constitute evidence that would stand up in court.

Suspicion possibly but surely the Police have better things to do rather than pursuing SMS addicts?

:)
 
if they wanted, they would know WHO you are.. right now... where you live.. what you were getting... and when.

So no, its not safe.

But I can promise they don't give two shits about you. . yet.
 
If "they" know where you live then you have already screwed up. If you're using proper cryptography for all communications then "they" might be able to see messages flowing but they will never know what the messages contain without wasting months of time.

The only thing you might be able to argue is that "they" will start assuming that everyone who uses cryptography is doing something "bad". But if you ask me, that's just a good reason for everyone to use cryptography as often as possible.
 
miss_goody2shoes said:
You gota be careful, they can track it/stuff. I've have friends that have had their phones tapped- well r we pretty certain- and you can sometimes hear echoing- that's a hint. We are always careful in what we say, how we ask for things, be cryptic, use code names etc etc.
Even if the authorities arn't/can't, doesn't hurt being cautious. Better safe than sorry!!
Click to expand...
The echoing is usually caused by feedback on cordless phones. I dont think it means yoyr being bugged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top