4 ms·

Now if we could just get a bill that actually limited the governments ability to collect data on its citizens. I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm wo

by donatj 4y ago

Now if we could just get a bill that actually limited the governments ability to collect data on its citizens. I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations. You talk to people and ask them why they are worried about companies collecting data, and a certain percentage will tell you they don't like that the government could get it with a court order. That'd be a HUGE improvement over the current situation where they don't have to, they just collect it directly.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
A lot of the time they just buy it from data brokers.
Ragnarork 4y ago
You need both. Companies collecting data on you directly or indirectly is a problem, even if they don't do anything malevolent with it (and some already do). The issue is that eventually they'll be breached, and then that data can end up in the hands of malicious actors that might use it in a way that could harm you (e.g. identity theft, compromising other accounts thanks to peronal info, etc.).
always2slow 4y ago
Why would they need a court order when they are already just buying the data with zero oversight? The panopticon works like this: fund startups that will create a data treasure trove -> legally buy / access the dataset and add it to xkeyscore.
candiddevmike 4y ago
This poses an interesting question: if the government mandates a company to collect data, are they exempt from this? What's stopping them from using that data for commerical purposes?
- lmkg 4y ago
  Section 101 part b "Permissible Purposes," defines when data is allowed to be collected. The sixth such purpose: "To comply with a legal obligation imposed by Federal, Tribal, Local, or State law..." A close reading of the wording implies this only covers requests backed by a law, i.e. it does not cover "polite requests" from a government agency. However that is a theoretic protection, practice could be different.
uni_rule 4y ago
That is incredibly shortsighted considering one of the prime ways the US Government skirts protections against domestic data collection is by simply buying it from private entities.
- legitster 4y ago
  There's a large difference though between what governments could presumably buy from ad trackers or data warehouses and what they can get by intercepting unencrypted web traffic at the ISP level.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Wouldn't it be the same if the ISP sold the gov. the extracted info they want ? In this setting the gov can hint at what data it wants, and private parties will manage to get it for resale.
    - legitster 4y ago
      I think to OP's point, if we are worried about government wrongdoing we should pass laws against government wrongdoing. It really doesn't matter what the private industry does or doesn't do if the government still has the right to take it. I am not afraid of my data being used against me to sell products. I am afraid of the government abusing their monopoly on violence. The first seems like misdirection.
      - always2slow 4y ago
        Technically we already have protection under the 4th amendment, to me this falls squarely under "papers, and effects" and is an unreasonable search. It seems that the court doesn't agree though considering the current state of things.
      - makeitdouble 4y ago
        I see your point and the appeal of pushing for toughness on the worst side with leniency on the lighter issues. It just seems irrealistic to have basically a "don't be evil" policy on gov side while letting gorrilla size businesses roam free. For instance we already have a very bad time dealing with VISA/Mastercard policies that straight dictate what businesses are allowed to thrive online. VISA/MC duopoly is not the gov, yet it has arguably more power on the online cultural landscape. And any gov making their life easier can have them implicitely return the favor in some way would be basically untraceable (the gov might not even need to ask for anything. VISA/MC would just apply changes in line with the gov.'s stated policies) User surveillance is the same, you can't have unruled gigantic entities allowed to do whatever they want, with the gov limited to a small set. That chinese wall is just bound to leak.
pessimizer 4y ago
They only need a court order (which can be from a secret court providing secret guidance, and can be a infinite standing order that covers vast amounts of arbitrary collection AUMF-style) to force companies to turn things over. Companies can just hand your data over because they don't want to be retaliated against (or in return for favors), and nobody needs a warrant, nobody ever has to tell anyone. Depending on agency internal rules, they may not even have to keep a record themselves of having done it (if they break their rules, they'll be responsible for punishing themselves though, I'm sure they'll be harsh.) That's your targeted ads (and your cellphone tracking, and your transaction records.)
carom 4y ago
Hell, I'd be happy if the DMV, post office, and voter records stopped publishing my address.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Fun fact: the lack of this is actually THE reason why Google Fonts is banned in the EU right now
hot_gril 4y ago
> I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations. Who's after you? I'm not making the lame "only wrongdoers have something to fear" argument, just wondering what circumstances you're dealing with.

by donatj 4y ago

micromacrofoot 4y ago

A lot of the time they just buy it from data brokers.

Ragnarork 4y ago

You need both. Companies collecting data on you directly or indirectly is a problem, even if they don't do anything malevolent with it (and some already do). The issue is that eventually they'll be breached, and then that data can end up in the hands of malicious actors that might use it in a way that could harm you (e.g. identity theft, compromising other accounts thanks to peronal info, etc.).

always2slow 4y ago

Why would they need a court order when they are already just buying the data with zero oversight? The panopticon works like this: fund startups that will create a data treasure trove -> legally buy / access the dataset and add it to xkeyscore.

candiddevmike 4y ago

This poses an interesting question: if the government mandates a company to collect data, are they exempt from this? What's stopping them from using that data for commerical purposes?

lmkg 4y ago
Section 101 part b "Permissible Purposes," defines when data is allowed to be collected. The sixth such purpose: "To comply with a legal obligation imposed by Federal, Tribal, Local, or State law..." A close reading of the wording implies this only covers requests backed by a law, i.e. it does not cover "polite requests" from a government agency. However that is a theoretic protection, practice could be different.

uni_rule 4y ago

That is incredibly shortsighted considering one of the prime ways the US Government skirts protections against domestic data collection is by simply buying it from private entities.

legitster 4y ago
There's a large difference though between what governments could presumably buy from ad trackers or data warehouses and what they can get by intercepting unencrypted web traffic at the ISP level.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be the same if the ISP sold the gov. the extracted info they want ? In this setting the gov can hint at what data it wants, and private parties will manage to get it for resale.
  - legitster 4y ago
    I think to OP's point, if we are worried about government wrongdoing we should pass laws against government wrongdoing. It really doesn't matter what the private industry does or doesn't do if the government still has the right to take it. I am not afraid of my data being used against me to sell products. I am afraid of the government abusing their monopoly on violence. The first seems like misdirection.
    - always2slow 4y ago
      Technically we already have protection under the 4th amendment, to me this falls squarely under "papers, and effects" and is an unreasonable search. It seems that the court doesn't agree though considering the current state of things.
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      I see your point and the appeal of pushing for toughness on the worst side with leniency on the lighter issues. It just seems irrealistic to have basically a "don't be evil" policy on gov side while letting gorrilla size businesses roam free. For instance we already have a very bad time dealing with VISA/Mastercard policies that straight dictate what businesses are allowed to thrive online. VISA/MC duopoly is not the gov, yet it has arguably more power on the online cultural landscape. And any gov making their life easier can have them implicitely return the favor in some way would be basically untraceable (the gov might not even need to ask for anything. VISA/MC would just apply changes in line with the gov.'s stated policies) User surveillance is the same, you can't have unruled gigantic entities allowed to do whatever they want, with the gov limited to a small set. That chinese wall is just bound to leak.

pessimizer 4y ago

They only need a court order (which can be from a secret court providing secret guidance, and can be a infinite standing order that covers vast amounts of arbitrary collection AUMF-style) to force companies to turn things over. Companies can just hand your data over because they don't want to be retaliated against (or in return for favors), and nobody needs a warrant, nobody ever has to tell anyone. Depending on agency internal rules, they may not even have to keep a record themselves of having done it (if they break their rules, they'll be responsible for punishing themselves though, I'm sure they'll be harsh.) That's your targeted ads (and your cellphone tracking, and your transaction records.)

carom 4y ago

Hell, I'd be happy if the DMV, post office, and voter records stopped publishing my address.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Fun fact: the lack of this is actually THE reason why Google Fonts is banned in the EU right now

hot_gril 4y ago

> I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations. Who's after you? I'm not making the lame "only wrongdoers have something to fear" argument, just wondering what circumstances you're dealing with.