4 ms·

But, nothing is being searched or seized here; it seems like people gave up their personal data, ignored or didn't read a ToS, and companies are selling it - no

by ukd1 5y ago

But, nothing is being searched or seized here; it seems like people gave up their personal data, ignored or didn't read a ToS, and companies are selling it - not being forced to give it up. I don't like it, but does it mean it's illegal?

kiba 5y ago
Nobody reads ToS. Doesn't mean people should give up their personal data. Maybe it should be illegal?
- sumedh 5y ago
  > Maybe it should be illegal? Then Congress has to pass a law to make it illegal.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Data held by 3rd parties falls under "papers and effects".
- coldacid 5y ago
  According to what law or precedent?
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Not really. It’s the service’s papers and effects, which happen to contain information about you. There’s obviously something very wrong here, but it’s a dead end to say no one can sell the government info about people. Need a different approach in the vein of outlawing crazy TOSs, keeping user ownership of their data even if used to make a service operate, right to be forgotten, etc.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    As far as I know, a warrant is required to tap a landline phone. I don't see how the principle behind that (reasonable) interpretation of the 4th amendment would not also apply to any kind of data (or metadata) from Internet traffic. Just because some 3rd party collected what is, by legal precedent, clearly considered personal effects and papers does not mean that 3rd party can grant absolution to the government in its need for a warrant to obtain that same data.
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      Telephones actually have a specific exemption to what’s called Third Party Doctrine: the government’s right to acquire information sans warrant when that information is lawfully held by a third party. Telcos are exempt for exactly the reason you mention: phones are really important to daily life and they collect tons of sensitive data as a side effect of normal use. IMO this is one of the more viable routes to getting this behavior changed: expand Third Party Doctrine exemptions to a lot more services, but to do that we’d have to confront just how much data we’re choosing to share, and whether we’re actually choosing to share it.
jkhdigital 5y ago
The government purchasing this data is tantamount to a search. There's quite a bit of precedent on this, much of which was needed after telephones became ubiquitous. Just because the electrical signals carrying a private conversation pass through wires that are owned by a third party does not make the conversation public. Similarly, just because internet traffic is observable by anyone with a network tap does not mean that the government can passively collect this data "just in case". Purchasing the data from a third party does not magically absolve the government of its Constitutional duty to first obtain a warrant for the data.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Just because the electrical signals carrying a private conversation pass through wires that are owned by a third party does not make the conversation public Without data protection laws that data isn't your private data, that data is the company's data. And you are free to do whatever you want with your data, and since the company owns this data the company can sell it to the government, it doesn't matter if you consider it to be your private data the company still owns it. Europe has GDPR which clarifies this, the data is yours even if it is stored on company servers, I'm not aware of USA having anything similar except for health data. So to me it sounds like you'd want USA to create something akin to GDPR.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    We have laws, though. The Fourth Amendment is a law, and it's reasonable to say that purchasing what is (arguably) the company's data is still tantamount to a search of our "effects". Or maybe it's not, and we need new legislation specifically targeting this. That's where the Supreme Court comes in: their raison d'être is to resolve ambiguities in existing law.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > The Fourth Amendment is a law, and it's reasonable to say that purchasing what is (arguably) the company's data is still tantamount to a search of our "effects". Got any precedents for this? All examples given in this thread was about the government forcing companies to hand over data, not companies just plain selling it to the government. These companies are already selling this data to other companies, like credit score companies gets a lot of data from banks, so to them selling it to the government as well is just another buyer. Does the fourth amendment really apply to cases like this? My hunch is that it does not, and you wont find any such cases since it is so clear that it doesn't apply that it hasn't even reached a court.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
The USA definitely needs to pass a 'GDPR on steroids' law here to get the bored government agencies off our backs.

by ukd1 5y ago

kiba 5y ago

Nobody reads ToS. Doesn't mean people should give up their personal data. Maybe it should be illegal?

sumedh 5y ago
> Maybe it should be illegal? Then Congress has to pass a law to make it illegal.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Data held by 3rd parties falls under "papers and effects".

coldacid 5y ago
According to what law or precedent?
ethanbond 5y ago
Not really. It’s the service’s papers and effects, which happen to contain information about you. There’s obviously something very wrong here, but it’s a dead end to say no one can sell the government info about people. Need a different approach in the vein of outlawing crazy TOSs, keeping user ownership of their data even if used to make a service operate, right to be forgotten, etc.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  As far as I know, a warrant is required to tap a landline phone. I don't see how the principle behind that (reasonable) interpretation of the 4th amendment would not also apply to any kind of data (or metadata) from Internet traffic. Just because some 3rd party collected what is, by legal precedent, clearly considered personal effects and papers does not mean that 3rd party can grant absolution to the government in its need for a warrant to obtain that same data.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Telephones actually have a specific exemption to what’s called Third Party Doctrine: the government’s right to acquire information sans warrant when that information is lawfully held by a third party. Telcos are exempt for exactly the reason you mention: phones are really important to daily life and they collect tons of sensitive data as a side effect of normal use. IMO this is one of the more viable routes to getting this behavior changed: expand Third Party Doctrine exemptions to a lot more services, but to do that we’d have to confront just how much data we’re choosing to share, and whether we’re actually choosing to share it.

jkhdigital 5y ago

The government purchasing this data is tantamount to a search. There's quite a bit of precedent on this, much of which was needed after telephones became ubiquitous. Just because the electrical signals carrying a private conversation pass through wires that are owned by a third party does not make the conversation public. Similarly, just because internet traffic is observable by anyone with a network tap does not mean that the government can passively collect this data "just in case". Purchasing the data from a third party does not magically absolve the government of its Constitutional duty to first obtain a warrant for the data.

Jensson 5y ago
> Just because the electrical signals carrying a private conversation pass through wires that are owned by a third party does not make the conversation public Without data protection laws that data isn't your private data, that data is the company's data. And you are free to do whatever you want with your data, and since the company owns this data the company can sell it to the government, it doesn't matter if you consider it to be your private data the company still owns it. Europe has GDPR which clarifies this, the data is yours even if it is stored on company servers, I'm not aware of USA having anything similar except for health data. So to me it sounds like you'd want USA to create something akin to GDPR.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  We have laws, though. The Fourth Amendment is a law, and it's reasonable to say that purchasing what is (arguably) the company's data is still tantamount to a search of our "effects". Or maybe it's not, and we need new legislation specifically targeting this. That's where the Supreme Court comes in: their raison d'être is to resolve ambiguities in existing law.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > The Fourth Amendment is a law, and it's reasonable to say that purchasing what is (arguably) the company's data is still tantamount to a search of our "effects". Got any precedents for this? All examples given in this thread was about the government forcing companies to hand over data, not companies just plain selling it to the government. These companies are already selling this data to other companies, like credit score companies gets a lot of data from banks, so to them selling it to the government as well is just another buyer. Does the fourth amendment really apply to cases like this? My hunch is that it does not, and you wont find any such cases since it is so clear that it doesn't apply that it hasn't even reached a court.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

The USA definitely needs to pass a 'GDPR on steroids' law here to get the bored government agencies off our backs.