4 ms·

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 ubiqui

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.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      I don't. My point is just that the Supreme Court can set a precedent, so it's possible that if the case were brought to them they might decide that it's covered under the Fourth Amendment (or something similar) without needing additional legislation.
      - tcmart14 5y ago
        I think this could win with a supreme court with judges who have a looser interpretation of the constitution, which right now is not the supreme court we have. The majority of the justices right now have a stricter interpretation and would not see government buying data as "search and seizure." The better solution would be to have laws legislated. However, unfortunately, there is so much gridlock because congress members are just chasing after Ws for their respective parties and minimizing Ls.
      - tzs 5y ago
        I don't see any reasonable way they could find a way to expand the Fourth Amendment to cover this without it also covering things like the government using information given to them by informants and witnesses without a warrant.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    You misunderstand the fourth. 1. The data is not yours. It’s the company’s 2. The government is not “search or seizing” the data, they are purchasing it or a license to it. 3. The company is selling it voluntarily, the government is not compelling it. The fourth does not apply.

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.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    I don't. My point is just that the Supreme Court can set a precedent, so it's possible that if the case were brought to them they might decide that it's covered under the Fourth Amendment (or something similar) without needing additional legislation.
    - tcmart14 5y ago
      I think this could win with a supreme court with judges who have a looser interpretation of the constitution, which right now is not the supreme court we have. The majority of the justices right now have a stricter interpretation and would not see government buying data as "search and seizure." The better solution would be to have laws legislated. However, unfortunately, there is so much gridlock because congress members are just chasing after Ws for their respective parties and minimizing Ls.
    - tzs 5y ago
      I don't see any reasonable way they could find a way to expand the Fourth Amendment to cover this without it also covering things like the government using information given to them by informants and witnesses without a warrant.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  You misunderstand the fourth. 1. The data is not yours. It’s the company’s 2. The government is not “search or seizing” the data, they are purchasing it or a license to it. 3. The company is selling it voluntarily, the government is not compelling it. The fourth does not apply.