3 ms·

Technically, an amendment could say anything, but historically, the US Constitution outlines rules the government is supposed to follow. The Constitution shoul

by 34679 4y ago

Technically, an amendment could say anything, but historically, the US Constitution outlines rules the government is supposed to follow. The Constitution should be amended to eliminate 3rd party circumvention of existing constitutional protections. Why is it that an agency needs a warrant to track you directly, but not to purchase tracking data from a data broker? How much less tracking and general invasion of privacy would Congress tolerate if the government wasn't directly benefiting from it?

sidewndr46 4y ago
Because you consent to the data gathering and tracking when you signed up for the service. It's not different than if the police ask "can I search your vehicle" and you say "yes". You consented to a search. At that point there is no concept of what is legal & what is not.
- gambiting 4y ago
  You never constented to your data being given to the police though(or more accurately in this case - to be sold to the data broker and then given to the police) More accure comparison would be if you left your car with a garage to have it serviced(giving them permission to enter the vehicle), then the police come to the garage and pay them some money to enter your car and search it.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    At least in the US almost everything follows "right of first sale" doctrine. Otherwise I'd have a claim against a car dealership when I trade in my used vehicle. The only thing I can think of that don't follow this is real estate. Racial covenants were functionally invalidated by the federal government a while back. But you can attach almost any other restriction to property you want. For example, you can include a no-commercialization clause when selling property.
- causality0 4y ago
  You could make the argument that contracts which say one party can spy on the other and do whatever they want with the data fall under the category of unconscionable.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Yes, you can make the argument. But it apparently doesn't weigh very heavily on most of America's consciousness.

by 34679 4y ago

sidewndr46 4y ago

Because you consent to the data gathering and tracking when you signed up for the service. It's not different than if the police ask "can I search your vehicle" and you say "yes". You consented to a search. At that point there is no concept of what is legal & what is not.

gambiting 4y ago
You never constented to your data being given to the police though(or more accurately in this case - to be sold to the data broker and then given to the police) More accure comparison would be if you left your car with a garage to have it serviced(giving them permission to enter the vehicle), then the police come to the garage and pay them some money to enter your car and search it.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  At least in the US almost everything follows "right of first sale" doctrine. Otherwise I'd have a claim against a car dealership when I trade in my used vehicle. The only thing I can think of that don't follow this is real estate. Racial covenants were functionally invalidated by the federal government a while back. But you can attach almost any other restriction to property you want. For example, you can include a no-commercialization clause when selling property.
causality0 4y ago
You could make the argument that contracts which say one party can spy on the other and do whatever they want with the data fall under the category of unconscionable.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Yes, you can make the argument. But it apparently doesn't weigh very heavily on most of America's consciousness.