4 ms·

>. My opinion, if you need a warrant to perform the investigation yourself, you need that warrant regardless of how you are going to obtain that data. While I

>. My opinion, if you need a warrant to perform the investigation yourself, you need that warrant regardless of how you are going to obtain that data. While I agree, I do understand that legally this is somewhat tricky. As long as the data remains publicly available, I can't see how to outlaw law enforcement from getting their hands on it, if we ban the agencies from buying it you'll just see fusion centers or private outreach groups buy it and gift the police. So do we ban the sale of such data? I'm in favor of that, but it's both going to be really difficult to pass a law that can run ads saying "this bill wants to triple the cost of your cell service" and outlawing the sale could give an advantage to those capabilities of collecting on their own. Which leaves us with banning the collection of that data, another thing I'm in favor of that I think will be impossible to pass.

rolph 4y ago
the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc. pertaining to allegations There should be a ban on acting as if judicial oversight is a formality and using a contractor/broker to strawman[!] aquisition of evidence around a warrant requirement. if there is no warrant demended then cart blanche should apply, the cops can then buy beg phone your friend, rent the apartment beside you etc. for the purpose of discovery pertaining to scope ........................................... [!] not the HN lexical strawman but more like an FFL strawman
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  The issue is this is publicly available. Should the police be unable to buy a newspaper that contains a story important to an investigation unless they get a warrant? Using this data should be illegal, but I don't see any quick and easy solutions. The data is public, and trying to bar police from accessing public data without a warrant is tricky.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    We get to make the rules the government plays by. Enough people need to be convinced that requiring police to present a warrant to purchase cellular location data is good for them. I would rather see the sale of location data made illegal. Then legitimate businesses would stop selling it.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  > the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc. The point the person you are replying to is trying to make is that there is no "search and seizure" happening at all. They can get around needing a warrant because no private, personal property is being accessed or seized. All of the information being accessed is not personal, private data owned by the individual. It is data that is owned by a company that is willingly selling it. Fixing this requires such data to be regulated as personal data that businesses can only be custodians on, not owners.
- rayiner 4y ago
  But the “legal right” is being free from search and seizure. The warrant process is a way of controlling the government’s power to conduct searches of private property that private individuals can’t do. The police can’t use a contract broker as a middle man to do what they can’t do themselves. For example they can’t hire someone else to knock down your door and search your house. But that has nothing to do with buying data about you from a third party that legally has it.
soulofmischief 4y ago
This is why, no matter what anyone tells you, FAANG is an effective surveillance arm for the government, even if some of them do not know it yet. Big data remains unchecked because it bypasses rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.
- perfecthjrjth 4y ago
  The best surveillance for a government indeed, sanctioned by the third-party doctrine to subvert the fifth amendment.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rolph 4y ago

the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc. pertaining to allegations There should be a ban on acting as if judicial oversight is a formality and using a contractor/broker to strawman[!] aquisition of evidence around a warrant requirement. if there is no warrant demended then cart blanche should apply, the cops can then buy beg phone your friend, rent the apartment beside you etc. for the purpose of discovery pertaining to scope ........................................... [!] not the HN lexical strawman but more like an FFL strawman

boomboomsubban 4y ago
The issue is this is publicly available. Should the police be unable to buy a newspaper that contains a story important to an investigation unless they get a warrant? Using this data should be illegal, but I don't see any quick and easy solutions. The data is public, and trying to bar police from accessing public data without a warrant is tricky.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  We get to make the rules the government plays by. Enough people need to be convinced that requiring police to present a warrant to purchase cellular location data is good for them. I would rather see the sale of location data made illegal. Then legitimate businesses would stop selling it.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
> the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc. The point the person you are replying to is trying to make is that there is no "search and seizure" happening at all. They can get around needing a warrant because no private, personal property is being accessed or seized. All of the information being accessed is not personal, private data owned by the individual. It is data that is owned by a company that is willingly selling it. Fixing this requires such data to be regulated as personal data that businesses can only be custodians on, not owners.
rayiner 4y ago
But the “legal right” is being free from search and seizure. The warrant process is a way of controlling the government’s power to conduct searches of private property that private individuals can’t do. The police can’t use a contract broker as a middle man to do what they can’t do themselves. For example they can’t hire someone else to knock down your door and search your house. But that has nothing to do with buying data about you from a third party that legally has it.

soulofmischief 4y ago

This is why, no matter what anyone tells you, FAANG is an effective surveillance arm for the government, even if some of them do not know it yet. Big data remains unchecked because it bypasses rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.

perfecthjrjth 4y ago
The best surveillance for a government indeed, sanctioned by the third-party doctrine to subvert the fifth amendment.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]