3 ms·

Sure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.

by darawk 4y ago

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.
nmeagent 4y ago
According to the article, Fog Reveal accounts are typically only offered to law enforcement organizations. The company apparently realizes the sensitivity of these data and doesn't just make it available to any random paying customer.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  They are still voluntarily selling to police which is consenting. It's not your data, it's their data they collected about you. Perhaps a good line to draw would be to ban resale of data? It's difficult to try to write a law around but at least we all agree it's a problem. It's a start.

Sure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.

by darawk 4y ago

Sure, but it seems pretty silly to ban the police from using data that any private citizen can access.

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.

nmeagent 4y ago

According to the article, Fog Reveal accounts are typically only offered to law enforcement organizations. The company apparently realizes the sensitivity of these data and doesn't just make it available to any random paying customer.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
They are still voluntarily selling to police which is consenting. It's not your data, it's their data they collected about you. Perhaps a good line to draw would be to ban resale of data? It's difficult to try to write a law around but at least we all agree it's a problem. It's a start.