3 ms·

> background checks Without explicit consent from the person being checked? That still seems to be a privacy violation to me.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Well, with Republican state governments cutting all traditional income means (read: taxes) how else are they to afford to run? This is 77m dollars. Yeah its horrible that your data is being sold. But there's no privacy amendment in the USA. And state budgets are suffering. Seems like raising taxes and voting better people would go quite a ways to stopping these practices from becoming normalized. (Edit: for those of you who've -1'ed me, it represents the same game theory that plays out in the electorate for those states. Most states are run by Republicans - fact. Any politicians, primarily Democrats, whom suggests higher taxation are blackballed. Nobody wants higher taxes. Yet, the states can't print money, but still need it. This is how we get into these situations. Game theory 101. And the -1's, show that. Because, how dare I suggest raising taxes and making these crooked uses of information=>money exfiltration illegal.)
- brlewis 7y ago
  USA does have a privacy amendment, the 4th amendment. Concisely summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure#United_Stat...
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    This comment makes no sense because the Fourth doesn't apply to data/information that you've surrendered to the DMV and that the DMV owns. Precisely from the same Wiki article that you linked: "...courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party...". So, the right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." doesn't apply, here, whatsoever. The reason that the DMV can sell the data is a direct effect of the fact that they own the data that you've surrendered for the privilege of driving. In order for your reference to have any standing, jurisprudence must first be reversed and that seems a dauntingly monumental and nigh-impossible task. It doesn't mean or infer that I think it's a "good" thing (hint: I do not) but to simply dismiss it as being protected by the fourth negates the very premise that has already been established that it isn't (as in this case, with the DMV).
    - brlewis 7y ago
      The comment you failed to make sense of makes a specific correction to a specific false statement. The U.S. does in fact have constitutional protection of privacy. You seem to want to discuss the applicability of that protection to this specific situation. I'm not especially interested in doing that. But I will supply the part of the quote you elided: "transferred to a third party, such as writing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for pick-up in an area where others might view it" If you want to argue that giving info to the DMV is analagous to writing on the outside of an envelope, feel free. I was only interested in correcting the common misconception that the constitution doesn't say anything about privacy.
scatters 7y ago
Why would that be without explicit consent?

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

Well, with Republican state governments cutting all traditional income means (read: taxes) how else are they to afford to run? This is 77m dollars. Yeah its horrible that your data is being sold. But there's no privacy amendment in the USA. And state budgets are suffering. Seems like raising taxes and voting better people would go quite a ways to stopping these practices from becoming normalized. (Edit: for those of you who've -1'ed me, it represents the same game theory that plays out in the electorate for those states. Most states are run by Republicans - fact. Any politicians, primarily Democrats, whom suggests higher taxation are blackballed. Nobody wants higher taxes. Yet, the states can't print money, but still need it. This is how we get into these situations. Game theory 101. And the -1's, show that. Because, how dare I suggest raising taxes and making these crooked uses of information=>money exfiltration illegal.)

brlewis 7y ago
USA does have a privacy amendment, the 4th amendment. Concisely summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure#United_Stat...
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  This comment makes no sense because the Fourth doesn't apply to data/information that you've surrendered to the DMV and that the DMV owns. Precisely from the same Wiki article that you linked: "...courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party...". So, the right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." doesn't apply, here, whatsoever. The reason that the DMV can sell the data is a direct effect of the fact that they own the data that you've surrendered for the privilege of driving. In order for your reference to have any standing, jurisprudence must first be reversed and that seems a dauntingly monumental and nigh-impossible task. It doesn't mean or infer that I think it's a "good" thing (hint: I do not) but to simply dismiss it as being protected by the fourth negates the very premise that has already been established that it isn't (as in this case, with the DMV).
  - brlewis 7y ago
    The comment you failed to make sense of makes a specific correction to a specific false statement. The U.S. does in fact have constitutional protection of privacy. You seem to want to discuss the applicability of that protection to this specific situation. I'm not especially interested in doing that. But I will supply the part of the quote you elided: "transferred to a third party, such as writing on the outside of an envelope sent through the mail or left for pick-up in an area where others might view it" If you want to argue that giving info to the DMV is analagous to writing on the outside of an envelope, feel free. I was only interested in correcting the common misconception that the constitution doesn't say anything about privacy.

scatters 7y ago

Why would that be without explicit consent?