7 ms·

It sounds dystopian, but I'm not really sure I disagree with the government here. We allow our personal data (to include real time location) to be collected and

It sounds dystopian, but I'm not really sure I disagree with the government here. We allow our personal data (to include real time location) to be collected and sold on third party exchanges. I'm not sure there is a strong argument for the government needing a warrant to access the data given how freely we already disseminate it. The solution would be to not disseminate it, but we, as a collective, have agreed to not make privacy a concern so far. The biggest irony of all is, as we saw with gdpr, most hn users are nominally for privacy until regulation is implemented and we realize that we(most programmers) are the people making a living off of the current state of privacy.

rconti 7y ago
It's interesting how textualism/originalism vs the constitution as a "living document" plays out. Of course a conservative interpretation of the constitution might say "the right to bear arms includes rocket launchers" where a liberal one might say "the founders could not have imagined such a weapon". In the same way, one could say "if you don't want to be tracked, don't carry a tracking device on you at all times", where a more liberal interpretation might be "the framers could not have imagined such an ubiquitous and useful device, and it's not reasonable to have to sacrifice modern convenience to maintain the privacy we thought we were guaranteed". And depending on the issue at stake, a more liberal or more conservative view might give you greater rights.
- drawnwren 7y ago
  I don't think that applies here. I'm specifically not saying that producing data makes it public. Rather I'm saying allowing a third party to resell your data with impunity necessarily obviates your ability to control the dissemination. If you've given control of your data to a third party, you have no control. Full stop.
  - Reelin 7y ago
    > If you've given control of your data to a third party, you have no control. Full stop. Given the current state of affairs, doesn't that effectively amount to not carrying a cell phone if you don't want to be tracked? It's not reasonable to assume that I opted in to sharing my data given that no realistic alternative is available to me. I do see your point though - if third party exchanges dealing in such data are legal, then why can't the government use it? It does seem inconsistent.
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      I do agree that 'don't interact with the modern world' seems like a ridiculous solution. Personally, I think GDPR was a reasonable first step down the path of regulation. I would personally like to see a regulation in the US that forced companies to offer data reselling as an add-on to a base package. As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. But it's important to note that we've moved from a legal to a moral question. Legally, I believe the government is currently in the right. Morally, the situation sucks and we should change it.
      - Reelin 7y ago
        > As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. Ehh, it's not as though changing your profession would have any sort of meaningful influence on something as large and nebulous as data harvesting, aggregation, sale, and similar. Where would you even draw the line? I suspect you would have trouble finding a reasonably sized company to work for that doesn't engage with adtech or use some form of analytics in some way. Regulation is the only solution I can see here.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        > As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. Unless you are responsible for the current situation then you aren't being hypocritical. I'm a programmer and only develop free software. I don't at all feel hypocritical to day that tech companies should be far more strictly regulated when it comes to user privacy and (god forbid!) ethics.
  - notbob 7y ago
    If that were true, then wiretaps would be A-OK as long as 1) the phone company willingly plays along; and 2) the tap never physically intrudes upon the subject's property. SCOTUS ruled explicitly on this question in Katz vs. US -- wiretapping is unconstitutional, regardless of physical intrusion. Just because you route your voice through a switch owned and controlled by a third part does not mean you give up your expectation of privacy.
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      In that case, you haven't entered into an agreement whereby advertisers may know the contents of your phone conversations in order to better target you with ads. If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently. It seems to me that this debate is merely about price. If the police were buying your location data off of a service that offered it, how would they be any different than advertisers?
      - notbob 7y ago
        > If the police were buying That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects. > If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently. The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, in any way, negate your expectation of privacy from your own government! SCOTUS has changed drastically since the 1960s, and I will be unsurprised if SCOTUS rolls back every single 'privacy' case that it encounters. But that has nothing to do with the merits of these cases; it's a way of salting the earth so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned while appearing less overtly political.
        drawnwren 7y ago
        > That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects. Yes, but my point was that we're only arguing about how much someone should have to spend to gain access. > The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, But my point, _again_, is that they were _not_ clear that you have some expectation of privacy after _selling your personal data on an exchange_.
  - User23 7y ago
    Yeah, posting your private personal information on a global communications network is a chump tier move. And if you don't realize that's what you're doing then you're even more of a chump.
- odessacubbage 7y ago
  isn't whether the founders could or could not have envisioned such a weapon somewhat of a moot point? the right to bear arms wasn't established simply because guns are a nice thing to have but as a means of ensuring that the government could be held in check by we the people. that doesn't work if the people are limited to flintlocks and the government has literally anything they can develop with practically unlimited scope. i don't really like guns at all, i find them loud and boring really but it's strange to frequently see people who argue that the spirit of the constitution must be interpreted further than the exact language only do so in a one sided manner that just so happens to align with their preexisting beliefs.
  - User23 7y ago
    The founders didn't envision the Internet either, should that mean that the first amendment doesn't cover it?
odessacubbage 7y ago
i think the best possible workaround is to give people more power to decide when and how they choose to give up that information for convenience. the biggest irony is that the coming era of ubiquitous facial recognition & biometrics will probably render victories in regards to location tracking relatively moot.
pdonis 7y ago
> We allow our personal data (to include real time location) to be collected and sold on third party exchanges. We do? How does that work? I have a cell phone and I have not given my cell phone provider any permission to do this with the location data it has.
- drawnwren 7y ago
  That's patently false. It's in that giant ToS that you didn't read and did sign. Here's where it is in T-Mobile's ToS [1]. You're looking for either, "To identify and suggest products or services that might interest you; To make internal business decisions about current and future product and service offerings; To provide you customized user experiences, including personalized product and service offerings;" or "If your device is turned on, our network is collecting data about the device location. We may use, provide access to, or disclose this network location data without your approval to provide and support our services, including to route wireless communications, operate and improve our network and business," 1 - https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/privacy/privacy-policy#howuseinfo https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/privacy/privacy-poli...
  - cyphar 7y ago
    It should be noted that, in the context of a phone where you have to click "Agree" in order to use it, you could argue the ToS is effectively a EULA. And the enforceability of EULAs is a fairly complicated topic, it's not as cut-and-dry as "you signed it".
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I think the bigger issue is that there are only 4 mobile networks and if none of them offer an option for privacy, then you're not really "choosing" anything since having access to the mobile network is integral to modern life.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    None of these things equate to "collected and sold on third-party exchanges".

rconti 7y ago

It's interesting how textualism/originalism vs the constitution as a "living document" plays out. Of course a conservative interpretation of the constitution might say "the right to bear arms includes rocket launchers" where a liberal one might say "the founders could not have imagined such a weapon". In the same way, one could say "if you don't want to be tracked, don't carry a tracking device on you at all times", where a more liberal interpretation might be "the framers could not have imagined such an ubiquitous and useful device, and it's not reasonable to have to sacrifice modern convenience to maintain the privacy we thought we were guaranteed". And depending on the issue at stake, a more liberal or more conservative view might give you greater rights.

drawnwren 7y ago
I don't think that applies here. I'm specifically not saying that producing data makes it public. Rather I'm saying allowing a third party to resell your data with impunity necessarily obviates your ability to control the dissemination. If you've given control of your data to a third party, you have no control. Full stop.
- Reelin 7y ago
  > If you've given control of your data to a third party, you have no control. Full stop. Given the current state of affairs, doesn't that effectively amount to not carrying a cell phone if you don't want to be tracked? It's not reasonable to assume that I opted in to sharing my data given that no realistic alternative is available to me. I do see your point though - if third party exchanges dealing in such data are legal, then why can't the government use it? It does seem inconsistent.
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    I do agree that 'don't interact with the modern world' seems like a ridiculous solution. Personally, I think GDPR was a reasonable first step down the path of regulation. I would personally like to see a regulation in the US that forced companies to offer data reselling as an add-on to a base package. As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. But it's important to note that we've moved from a legal to a moral question. Legally, I believe the government is currently in the right. Morally, the situation sucks and we should change it.
    - Reelin 7y ago
      > As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. Ehh, it's not as though changing your profession would have any sort of meaningful influence on something as large and nebulous as data harvesting, aggregation, sale, and similar. Where would you even draw the line? I suspect you would have trouble finding a reasonably sized company to work for that doesn't engage with adtech or use some form of analytics in some way. Regulation is the only solution I can see here.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      > As a programmer in 2019, I think it's a bit hypocritical of me to opt-in to the industry that is responsible for the situation we are in while saying 'regulation is the solution here'. Unless you are responsible for the current situation then you aren't being hypocritical. I'm a programmer and only develop free software. I don't at all feel hypocritical to day that tech companies should be far more strictly regulated when it comes to user privacy and (god forbid!) ethics.
- notbob 7y ago
  If that were true, then wiretaps would be A-OK as long as 1) the phone company willingly plays along; and 2) the tap never physically intrudes upon the subject's property. SCOTUS ruled explicitly on this question in Katz vs. US -- wiretapping is unconstitutional, regardless of physical intrusion. Just because you route your voice through a switch owned and controlled by a third part does not mean you give up your expectation of privacy.
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    In that case, you haven't entered into an agreement whereby advertisers may know the contents of your phone conversations in order to better target you with ads. If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently. It seems to me that this debate is merely about price. If the police were buying your location data off of a service that offered it, how would they be any different than advertisers?
    - notbob 7y ago
      > If the police were buying That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects. > If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently. The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, in any way, negate your expectation of privacy from your own government! SCOTUS has changed drastically since the 1960s, and I will be unsurprised if SCOTUS rolls back every single 'privacy' case that it encounters. But that has nothing to do with the merits of these cases; it's a way of salting the earth so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned while appearing less overtly political.
      - drawnwren 7y ago
        > That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects. Yes, but my point was that we're only arguing about how much someone should have to spend to gain access. > The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, But my point, _again_, is that they were _not_ clear that you have some expectation of privacy after _selling your personal data on an exchange_.
- User23 7y ago
  Yeah, posting your private personal information on a global communications network is a chump tier move. And if you don't realize that's what you're doing then you're even more of a chump.
odessacubbage 7y ago
isn't whether the founders could or could not have envisioned such a weapon somewhat of a moot point? the right to bear arms wasn't established simply because guns are a nice thing to have but as a means of ensuring that the government could be held in check by we the people. that doesn't work if the people are limited to flintlocks and the government has literally anything they can develop with practically unlimited scope. i don't really like guns at all, i find them loud and boring really but it's strange to frequently see people who argue that the spirit of the constitution must be interpreted further than the exact language only do so in a one sided manner that just so happens to align with their preexisting beliefs.
- User23 7y ago
  The founders didn't envision the Internet either, should that mean that the first amendment doesn't cover it?

odessacubbage 7y ago

i think the best possible workaround is to give people more power to decide when and how they choose to give up that information for convenience. the biggest irony is that the coming era of ubiquitous facial recognition & biometrics will probably render victories in regards to location tracking relatively moot.

pdonis 7y ago

> We allow our personal data (to include real time location) to be collected and sold on third party exchanges. We do? How does that work? I have a cell phone and I have not given my cell phone provider any permission to do this with the location data it has.

drawnwren 7y ago
That's patently false. It's in that giant ToS that you didn't read and did sign. Here's where it is in T-Mobile's ToS [1]. You're looking for either, "To identify and suggest products or services that might interest you; To make internal business decisions about current and future product and service offerings; To provide you customized user experiences, including personalized product and service offerings;" or "If your device is turned on, our network is collecting data about the device location. We may use, provide access to, or disclose this network location data without your approval to provide and support our services, including to route wireless communications, operate and improve our network and business," 1 - https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/privacy/privacy-policy#howuseinfo https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/privacy/privacy-poli...
- cyphar 7y ago
  It should be noted that, in the context of a phone where you have to click "Agree" in order to use it, you could argue the ToS is effectively a EULA. And the enforceability of EULAs is a fairly complicated topic, it's not as cut-and-dry as "you signed it".
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I think the bigger issue is that there are only 4 mobile networks and if none of them offer an option for privacy, then you're not really "choosing" anything since having access to the mobile network is integral to modern life.
- pdonis 7y ago
  None of these things equate to "collected and sold on third-party exchanges".