4 ms·

Right now, the police don't even need a warrant, merely the coöperation of the corporation.

luizlopes 10y ago
> government uses corporations to do what government cannot do, and corporations use government to do what corporations cannot do. I can't remember where I read, or heard this. However, it made sense to me.
- paavokoya 10y ago
  The CIA is an arm of US corporate interests that carries out missions to benefit US corporate interests abroad.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    That's a ridiculous claim. Do you have any evidence of that?
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Guatemala (1952-54) and Iran (1953) both come to mind. United Fruit and Anglo-Iranian Oil -- the latter a British firm, but with distinct US interests. Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and US sugar, alcohol, and tobacco interests. Almost certainly Sukarno (Indonesia), though that nominally had Communist concerns as well. Indonesia was a source of oil, natural gas, tin, copper, gold, natural rubber, and tropical hardwoods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#/search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Noam Chomsky should be a good source for more such information.
dimino 10y ago
Well that's simply not true...
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Evidence? Counter-argument? Anything? Just a flat-out denial of a seemingly-true statement does nothing to advance the conversation. (Why do I call it a seemingly-true statement? Because if a local ISP, say, will answer questions from the police, without a warrant, then the police are likely to feel free to call the ISP and ask questions when they don't have a warrant. Human nature likes not having to do the extra work.)
  - dimino 10y ago
    I don't need evidence to question a claim, only to make a counter claim. I am questioning the claim that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to legally view data about an individual or individuals collected by a 3rd party.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
      - dimino 10y ago
        "the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
        pdkl95 10y ago
        US v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...

> government uses corporations to do what government cannot do, and corporations use government to do what corporations cannot do. I can't remember where I read, or heard this. However, it made sense to me.

paavokoya 10y ago
The CIA is an arm of US corporate interests that carries out missions to benefit US corporate interests abroad.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  That's a ridiculous claim. Do you have any evidence of that?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Guatemala (1952-54) and Iran (1953) both come to mind. United Fruit and Anglo-Iranian Oil -- the latter a British firm, but with distinct US interests. Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and US sugar, alcohol, and tobacco interests. Almost certainly Sukarno (Indonesia), though that nominally had Communist concerns as well. Indonesia was a source of oil, natural gas, tin, copper, gold, natural rubber, and tropical hardwoods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#/search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Noam Chomsky should be a good source for more such information.

dimino 10y ago

Well that's simply not true...

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Evidence? Counter-argument? Anything? Just a flat-out denial of a seemingly-true statement does nothing to advance the conversation. (Why do I call it a seemingly-true statement? Because if a local ISP, say, will answer questions from the police, without a warrant, then the police are likely to feel free to call the ISP and ask questions when they don't have a warrant. Human nature likes not having to do the extra work.)
- dimino 10y ago
  I don't need evidence to question a claim, only to make a counter claim. I am questioning the claim that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to legally view data about an individual or individuals collected by a 3rd party.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
    - dimino 10y ago
      "the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        US v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...