4 ms·

Like with any other form of surveillance, if it's a bad practice, then it shouldn't be used on anyone, regardless of race.

by 13415 6y ago

bilbo0s 6y ago
Point is, the time to stop that particular practice was in its infancy. Waiting until the practice is both widespread and normalized is a losing strategy. The use of cell phone data is well understood, well litigated, and for all intents and purposes, settled law. To come along and unwind all that now is sisyphaean. We need to start getting out in front of the issues. Not reacting all the time. And certainly not allowing privacy violations that affect others, then trying to prevent the very same privacy violation from affecting our own. The people doing the violating are going to double down. They don't want their critics being proved right. They don't want to be accused of being hypocritical. So what are they going to do? As privacy activists, we need to make it easy for potential partners to cooperate with us. Right now, we're making it very difficult for potential partners to cooperate with us. We're putting potential partners in very difficult positions, and then asking why they won't support us?
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  This is unnecessarily defeatist. GPDR proved that you could get enough support for large scale walkback of thoroughly entrenched practices.
  - simple_phrases 6y ago
    The US isn't Europe, and in the US, law enforcement has undue influence in government and significant lobbying power. PBAs successfully lobbied to keep marijuana illegal all over the country, and it took public referendums to get it legalized in states that it is legal in. Even then, PBAs had undue influence in crafting legislation so that municipal police could still ticket and jail people in order to still generate revenue from marijuana possession and sale violations.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  We need to start getting out in front of the issues. Not reacting all the time. It's kind of difficult when the privacy violations in question begin in secret. Consider police trying not to disclose their use of Stingrays, for example. I somehow doubt police departments and intelligence agencies are going to agree to run all future uses of tech by a privacy watchdog, so how do you suggest getting ahead of the problem?
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    Well maybe we need to go over their heads then. That's supposed to be the purpose of the legislative branch - make rules about how the government is allowed to operate.
- quasirandom 6y ago
  > The use of cell phone data is well understood, well litigated, and for all intents and purposes, settled law. I don't have strong views on the right policy outcome, but it is not accurate to call this issue well litigated and/or settled law. Just yesterday, NYTimes ran an article about DIA claiming a "commercial availability" exception to the only Supreme Court case addressing cell phone location data (Carpenter). If that is indeed DIA's rational, they are going to have some problems. For example, it is unlawful for the state to use commercially available thermal optics to surveil the interior of a dwelling without a warrant. I think DIA may be relying on dicta from Kyllo about devices in "common use", but their rational is secret so we won't know until it is... litigated. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveillance-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveilla...
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    How can it be litigated if it is secret? The sorts of lawyers allowed to know of it are not the sorts of lawyers who file suit in the public interest.
    - alsetmusic 6y ago
      > but their rational is secret so we won't know until it is... litigated. Presumably, this statement means that litigation will necessarily reveal the rational by presenting it.
xbmcuser 6y ago
Thats his point this was being done years ago but white americans were not part of the demographic surveilled this way so didn't care now that they are and it gets stopped because of it then people accusing the police and government of racism are correct.

Like with any other form of surveillance, if it's a bad practice, then it shouldn't be used on anyone, regardless of race.

by 13415 6y ago

Like with any other form of surveillance, if it's a bad practice, then it shouldn't be used on anyone, regardless of race.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Point is, the time to stop that particular practice was in its infancy. Waiting until the practice is both widespread and normalized is a losing strategy. The use of cell phone data is well understood, well litigated, and for all intents and purposes, settled law. To come along and unwind all that now is sisyphaean. We need to start getting out in front of the issues. Not reacting all the time. And certainly not allowing privacy violations that affect others, then trying to prevent the very same privacy violation from affecting our own. The people doing the violating are going to double down. They don't want their critics being proved right. They don't want to be accused of being hypocritical. So what are they going to do? As privacy activists, we need to make it easy for potential partners to cooperate with us. Right now, we're making it very difficult for potential partners to cooperate with us. We're putting potential partners in very difficult positions, and then asking why they won't support us?

Enginerrrd 6y ago
This is unnecessarily defeatist. GPDR proved that you could get enough support for large scale walkback of thoroughly entrenched practices.
- simple_phrases 6y ago
  The US isn't Europe, and in the US, law enforcement has undue influence in government and significant lobbying power. PBAs successfully lobbied to keep marijuana illegal all over the country, and it took public referendums to get it legalized in states that it is legal in. Even then, PBAs had undue influence in crafting legislation so that municipal police could still ticket and jail people in order to still generate revenue from marijuana possession and sale violations.
nitrogen 6y ago
We need to start getting out in front of the issues. Not reacting all the time. It's kind of difficult when the privacy violations in question begin in secret. Consider police trying not to disclose their use of Stingrays, for example. I somehow doubt police departments and intelligence agencies are going to agree to run all future uses of tech by a privacy watchdog, so how do you suggest getting ahead of the problem?
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  Well maybe we need to go over their heads then. That's supposed to be the purpose of the legislative branch - make rules about how the government is allowed to operate.
quasirandom 6y ago
> The use of cell phone data is well understood, well litigated, and for all intents and purposes, settled law. I don't have strong views on the right policy outcome, but it is not accurate to call this issue well litigated and/or settled law. Just yesterday, NYTimes ran an article about DIA claiming a "commercial availability" exception to the only Supreme Court case addressing cell phone location data (Carpenter). If that is indeed DIA's rational, they are going to have some problems. For example, it is unlawful for the state to use commercially available thermal optics to surveil the interior of a dwelling without a warrant. I think DIA may be relying on dicta from Kyllo about devices in "common use", but their rational is secret so we won't know until it is... litigated. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveillance-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveilla...
- jessaustin 6y ago
  How can it be litigated if it is secret? The sorts of lawyers allowed to know of it are not the sorts of lawyers who file suit in the public interest.
  - alsetmusic 6y ago
    > but their rational is secret so we won't know until it is... litigated. Presumably, this statement means that litigation will necessarily reveal the rational by presenting it.

xbmcuser 6y ago

Thats his point this was being done years ago but white americans were not part of the demographic surveilled this way so didn't care now that they are and it gets stopped because of it then people accusing the police and government of racism are correct.