9 ms·
CBP Refuses to Tell Congress How It Is Tracking Americans Without a Warrant
- Glyptodon 6y agoOn one hand it seems pretty clear that ignoring Congress is pretty bad. On the other, buying something from a private party seems like it'd clearly be a requisition process and not require a warrant as unfortunate as that is.
- CalChris 6y agoUnreasonable searches do not become reasonable searches simply because they're done by Palantir. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- trhway 6y agowhile emotionally i'm with you, logically i think that the data entering public commerce (until of course Palantir collected it illegally or in violation of privacy provisions of user contracts - which is pretty hard to establish given the multi-layer of data laundering) is like somebody walking the public street, ie. free game, in the sense that i don't see any explicit protection applicable in such a case. It also seems to follow that slippery slope proverb "they came ... until they came for you" - government started by outsourcing (to military contractors) illegal actions against foreign citizens, statistically mostly accidental civilians, and the citizenry was mainly fine with it, and now government seems to apply the outsourcing loophole (starting with data, the rest will come later) to its own citizenry. Failure to obey Congress? We're talking about agency which seems to have lost all humanity in their agents who shackle pregnant women right before and after delivery - i'm waiting for some military contractor to come up with and the CBP to buy the shackles allowing delivery while still on. Compare to that some database search without warrant... I mean it is kind of naive to think that illegality and inhumanity can be practiced while confined just at one agency or area of operations without metastasizing across.
- nobody9999 6y ago>while emotionally i'm with you, logically i think that the data entering public commerce (until of course Palantir collected it illegally or in violation of privacy provisions of user contracts - which is pretty hard to establish given the multi-layer of data laundering) is like somebody walking the public street, ie. free game, in the sense that i don't see any explicit protection applicable in such a case. A fair assessment of the current situation. However, there's nothing stopping the US (or any other government) from restricting both the collection of such data and/or government use of that collected data. What's apparently missing is the political will. Which points to the larger problem in the US -- sewers of filthy lucre flowing through the political system. If you get rid of the necessity for all that money with strict public funding of elections, along with resources to allow all citizens to express themselves on an equal footing with everyone else, we're more likely to get a government focused on the needs of constituents rather than the desires of big money contributors.
- Glyptodon 6y agoThat's never been interpreted to require, for example, that the USGS needs a warrant from a court to make a map. Similarly, Palantir's collection of data isn't considered to be owned by those who it documents. I may despise Palantir, or think there should be other reforms to how data "ownership" works, and I may think that private companies are creating a giant Constitution-circumventing loophole, but it's very disengenuous to suggest that our history would make any government purchasing or licensing of something from a private business subject to a warrant.
- CalChris 6y agoThe USGS cannot enter your private property without your permission. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-usgs-do-a-survey-or-study-my-private-property https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-usgs-do-a-survey-or-study-my-p...
- solidsnack9000 6y agoHow they get the data is not really as important as what they're doing with it -- that's what makes it an issue requiring a transparent legal analysis.
- spdustin 6y agoAnyone have any insight into the domains used by Venntel? Are they aggregating data from other ad networks?
- enjoyyourlife 6y agoAccording to [0] the "data comes from a variety of phone applications—such as gaming or weather apps." Their opt-out policy [1] confirms that since it requires a mobile advertising identifier. It seems like they can only collect data from mobile devices. [0] https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/the-government-has-your-phone-location-data-it-might-be-legal-but-what-does-it-mean-for-your-privacy/GLTR-03-2020/ https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/the-government-has-your-... [1] https://www.venntel.com/opt-out https://www.venntel.com/opt-out
- paledot 6y agoYes, CBP should be (is?) required to have a warrant. The crazy part is that, if the law were being respected, there would be a higher standard of behaviour for a government agency than for private companies. Dragnet surveillance is wrong and needs to be illegal no matter who the buyer is.
- comeonseriously 6y agoWarrant issue aside, CBP should not be above the scrutiny of Congress. They should never be allowed to tell Congress to piss off.
- coldcode 6y agoNo government agency should be above Congress. If it consider's itself so, it should be defunded which is for sure the purview of Congress.
- jaywalk 6y agoThis is a very important point. Congress is complicit in allowing this, because they have the authority to shut these agencies down.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThis is kind of a moot point if the portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of both houses. Which is how Congress is supposed to work (it's not supposed to be very fast) but I don't think the founders had Congress delegating rulemaking powers to executive authorities in mind.
- pessimizer 6y agoThe portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of anything. One of them is Warren, and Pelosi was campaigning against Markey just a month ago.
- throw08ba6a 6y agoIt seems like problems to do with these things will only ever be solved politically which is very alarming. Is there any resource which effectively threat models these situations?
- comeonseriously 6y ago> Venntel sources its data from weather, games, e-commerce, and other innocuous apps, whose users may be unaware that their location is being sold to the U.S. government. The weather app would be a little tricky, but clearly what we need is a way to spoof our location. Just pick a random coordinates each time these apps request it. Add as much noise to the data as possible to make it as useless as possible. I don't think it is enough to limit location to when we're using the app. We need to flood these apps with bad data.
- wlesieutre 6y agoIt doesn't fix all location privacy issues, but iOS took a nice step recently of making "precise location" a toggle that users can turn off. For a fitness app, you'd give it a precise location. For weather, knowing what town you're in is probably fine. https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/12/ios-14-precise-location/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/12/ios-14-precise-location/
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago> clearly what we need is a way to spoof our location. Just pick a random coordinates each time these apps request it. A handful of us nerds may run some niche version of Android that allows this, but it is hard to imagine Google allowing random location spoofing on all the phones with its Play Services installed, especially considering that Google itself wants to know your exact location for advertising purposes.
- mrguyorama 6y agoIn the developer options of nearly any android phone since like at least 8, is a setting for "Select mock location app". It's current use? People often used it to cheat in Pokemon Go
- wrkronmiller 6y agoPotentially useful: https://www.venntel.com/opt-out https://www.venntel.com/opt-out
- abfan1127 6y agoI had to install the "Identifier" App to get the ad ID. As it turns out, I didn't have "Limit Ad tracking" on my iPhone enabled either. I've since turned on the limiting feature. For those that didn't know: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074
- malshe 6y agoI am on iOS 14 and this app doesn't show any identifier. Also, I can't delete it!
- LorenPechtel 6y agoIt sounds like they are getting the data legally. However, it also sounds like they're guilty of contempt of congress. Jail the guy they were talking to, call his superior. Repeat until you have the answers.
- gumby 6y agoCongress can't really know if they are or are not without being able to subpoena personnel and documents.
- PeterisP 6y agoWell, congress gets to decide which ways of getting the data will be legal. So if the congress is not satisfied that CBP is getting the data in a way that they are happy with, then they can and should change the rules.
- ausbah 6y agocourts also have a say if the right case gets presented, and it's doubtful any meaningful legislation can be done in this political environment
- FireBeyond 6y agoAcquiring the data, perhaps. Utilizing it, from this article, is a lot less clear.
- 1024core 6y agoI wish the Democrats had the backbone to start throwing uncooperating bureaucrats into jail. I bet the rest of them would fall in line pretty quickly. It is the Congress' job to conduct oversight. You can't have any "oversight" without cooperation and truthfullness.
- bobthepanda 6y agoDoes the House have the sole power to do this? Or do you need both?
- Havoc 6y agoWhat is it with CBP and the jacked up sense of rules don’t apply to us? Last I checked they were not special ops doing off the books assassination mission deep behind enemy lines.
- jaywalk 6y agoThey're keeping the Bad Guys(TM) out!
- pianoben 6y agoThe fish rots from the head, so they say. Amazing to see how open contempt of the Legislative branch just trickles down.
- gumby 6y agoCongress has the power of the purse. Failure to appear: no paycheck. Multiple failure to appear: automatic departmental budget cut, ultimately to zero. The executive may choose to illegally shuffle money around but that doesn't work for long. Ironically the legislation that created DHS (a big mistake made opportunistically at the time) also included a GOP wish that made it not subject to the same set of employee rules the rest of the civil service is.* So DHS is the easiest to do this with. * It is still partially unionized, though the GOP tried to eliminate this when forming the department as well.
- devwastaken 6y agoThey do, but the politics of this means that if you try to temporarily defund customs then you're under the label of "X wants to defund our border patrol and let in anyone!"
- tehjoker 6y agoWe should want to let everyone in. Everyone is drinking hyper-nationalist koolaid.
- popinman322 6y agoIt's a bit more nuanced than that. While we probably should improve/expand asylum infrastructure, and similar programs, we can't just open the borders. We have a lot of social programs that are already strained (mostly by legislation designed to hobble them) by our current population; until those are sorted out we don't have a strong enough foundation for faster/more immigration.
- predictmktegirl 6y agoI disagree. Let's move fast and break things. Status quo is not going to improve our welfare in either the literal or policy sense. Economically speaking, immigration is the most profitable policy decision a government can make.
- jjones2 6y agoI had to read the title a few times to my self it was that shocking. The audacity. The CBP is doing something illegal to citizens and then they refuse to come to court, essentially.
- zaphar 6y agoI wonder if a lawyer would say this was a cut and dried case of warrant-less search or if it's legally ambiguous. I can imagine naively arguments both for and against this.
- throwawaymanbot 6y agosadly, they are no overly Politicized outlaws. Defund and replace.
- Ansil849 6y agoFrom a lay outsider's perspective, it seems like there is no real "balance of power" that's oft-touted when Americans discuss their politics. It seems like agencies like the DHS and CBP have all the power (backed by the president, who seems to have complete and ultimate power), and all Congress has the power to do (or perhaps, doesn't care to exercise any power it may have) is draft letters and launch investigations that have no real repercussions for those responsible for abuses. It would make me really happy if someone provides links to cases where the opposite was true - where Congress successfully exercised power over DHS, CBP, ETC.
- merpnderp 6y agoCongress can trivially defund anything they please. It is illegal to spend money that hasn't been directly allocated by Congress. The US's problem is that Congress has abdicated most of its power to government agencies in the Executive branch, and politicians are happy with this as it makes them less responsible for failures to properly govern.
- brlewis 6y ago> or perhaps, doesn't care to exercise any power it may have This would be the first hypothesis I'd investigate. That politicians would launch investigations for mere political purposes seems plausible.
- nickff 6y agoIf you're interested in learning more about the subject, I'd recommend this interview with Justin Amash (libertarian congressman not running for re-election). I think most of his statements (in this interview) are quite non-partisan. https://www.libertarianism.org/podcasts/free-thoughts/who-broke-congress-rep-justin-amash https://www.libertarianism.org/podcasts/free-thoughts/who-br...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bladegash 6y agoIt happens all of the time, you just generally do not hear about it as most of it takes place informally or via means you aren't paying attention to. In fact, one of the major complaints regarding DHS' ability to be effective has been that they have too much oversight. DHS reports to over 3x as many committees, subcommittees, and caucuses in Congress as the next closest Department (DoD, for anyone wondering). For example, Congress holds Constitutional authority to appropriate funds to agencies. A great place to see where Congress exercises that authority is via spending bills[1][2]. Depending on the organization, they will get into nitty gritty details to the point of almost micromanaging an organization. As an example of where you do not typically see/look, is the lead up to the creation of spending bills. There is a ton of research, cajoling, persuading, and compromising on all sides of the aisle during that process. It may seem that there is not a balance of power, but perceptions are notoriously faulty. It is the same way that if I were to watch the news regularly, I would think the world is being taken over by terrorists or that crime is at an all time high - neither of which are true. Things are not nearly as bad as they seem and people have a habit of romanticizing the past. That being said, there is currently a divided government (e.g., political science speak for Legislative and Executive branches being controlled by different parties). In addition, this administration has had three Supreme Court appointments in a single term. That is pretty much unheard of. The Legislative Branch has also delegated some pretty significant authorities to the Executive, which has been problematic in some cases. I guess to wrap this up - what you are seeing is not new. The behavior is just more apparent because of modern society's unprecedented access to information and a recent trend of politicians who don not have enough shame to hide their shady behavior. [1] 2020 Spending Bill - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1865/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1865... [2] FY 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3905/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/390...
- mxyzplk 6y agoMy son's response to the whole "Tik Tok gives the Chinese your deets" controversy was "I don't care, you can just buy all that information anyway." QED.