8 ms·

I haven't seen this covered in mainstream TV news, save for a segment earlier this week on PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-an-obscure-

I haven't seen this covered in mainstream TV news, save for a segment earlier this week on PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-an-obscure-cellphone-tracking-tool-provides-police-mass-surveillance-on-a-budget https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-an-obscure-cellpho... Rather sad that it isn't more widely discussed.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Isn't it obvious why? Everybody uses cops as a punching bag but they are merely buying information that 3rd parties are willing to sell. The 3rd parties have deep pockets. How do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? I'm not sure how. Nobody wants to give up their phones.
- redeux 4y ago
  It requires a legislative solution and increasing the issue’s visibility seems like a reasonable way to create negative public sentiment and apply pressure to legislatures.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Yes but every article points fingers at cops- the wrong target. The right target are the data brokers. How would you possibly tell cops they cannot use information that others can freely purchase?
    - redeux 4y ago
      I felt like it was using police to highlight the dangers of data brokers, rather than pointing the finger at police. Either way it seems like we agree that the problem here isn’t that the police are using a tool that aggregates 3rd-party data, but rather that the data is allowed to be aggregated and sold to begin with.
- humanistbot 4y ago
  Local procurement ordinances. A city council can pass an ordinance that does not allow any part of the city's budget to be spent on data from data brokers or really any technology -- drones, facial recognition, whatever. This academic paper looks at efforts in Oakland, Seattle, and San Diego [1] [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006
  - darawk 4y ago
    Sure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.
    - humanistbot 4y ago
      Why? Private citizens don't have the ability to put you in an interrogation room against your will, and aren't in the business of being professional investigators. I get the argument that the best long-term solution would be regulating the data brokers. But if you want to do something right now that will actually restrict the police in your neighborhoods from using this as part of their jobs, this is a way to do that.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Police don't need warrants when given consent. Police can search your house without a warrant if you tell them that they can. Police can buy information from data brokers. Warrants compel compliance
        HarryHirsch 4y ago
        Maybe they should need warrants even with consent. The drug dog spiel has gotten far too old to be tolerable.
        Cupertino95014 4y ago
        If you swim in the "don't talk to police" ocean, you discover versions of the comic dialog (well, it isn't really funny) when the cops have you in the interrogation room "with your consent": You: Am I under arrest? Cops: We just want to ask you a few questions so you can help us out. You are not a suspect. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: We just want to clear up a few things. You are not under arrest. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: Before you go, we want to ask a couple things. You: So I'm free to go? etc.
- wmf 4y ago
  How do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? GDPR USA edition.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Isn't it obvious why? Everybody uses cops as a punching bag but they are merely buying information that 3rd parties are willing to sell. The 3rd parties have deep pockets. How do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? I'm not sure how. Nobody wants to give up their phones.

redeux 4y ago
It requires a legislative solution and increasing the issue’s visibility seems like a reasonable way to create negative public sentiment and apply pressure to legislatures.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Yes but every article points fingers at cops- the wrong target. The right target are the data brokers. How would you possibly tell cops they cannot use information that others can freely purchase?
  - redeux 4y ago
    I felt like it was using police to highlight the dangers of data brokers, rather than pointing the finger at police. Either way it seems like we agree that the problem here isn’t that the police are using a tool that aggregates 3rd-party data, but rather that the data is allowed to be aggregated and sold to begin with.
humanistbot 4y ago
Local procurement ordinances. A city council can pass an ordinance that does not allow any part of the city's budget to be spent on data from data brokers or really any technology -- drones, facial recognition, whatever. This academic paper looks at efforts in Oakland, Seattle, and San Diego [1] [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2737006
- darawk 4y ago
  Sure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.
  - humanistbot 4y ago
    Why? Private citizens don't have the ability to put you in an interrogation room against your will, and aren't in the business of being professional investigators. I get the argument that the best long-term solution would be regulating the data brokers. But if you want to do something right now that will actually restrict the police in your neighborhoods from using this as part of their jobs, this is a way to do that.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Police don't need warrants when given consent. Police can search your house without a warrant if you tell them that they can. Police can buy information from data brokers. Warrants compel compliance
      - HarryHirsch 4y ago
        Maybe they should need warrants even with consent. The drug dog spiel has gotten far too old to be tolerable.
      - Cupertino95014 4y ago
        If you swim in the "don't talk to police" ocean, you discover versions of the comic dialog (well, it isn't really funny) when the cops have you in the interrogation room "with your consent": You: Am I under arrest? Cops: We just want to ask you a few questions so you can help us out. You are not a suspect. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: We just want to clear up a few things. You are not under arrest. You: So I'm free to go? Cops: Before you go, we want to ask a couple things. You: So I'm free to go? etc.
wmf 4y ago
How do you hold the data selling 3rd parties accountable? GDPR USA edition.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]