3 ms·

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

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.
notinfuriated 4y ago
Pretty sure everyone who wants gov data collection of private individuals would want this to be illegal as well. I'm disappointed to find most of the complaining on this thread about businesses collecting personal data, rather than the government. Even more so that the first comment's top response regarding this is shooting it down because of an imagined loophole. It disgusted me about CCPA that a private company can have a breach and be fined millions, but the CA govt is immune. Same thing here, and it should disgust everyone who supposedly cares about privacy.

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.

notinfuriated 4y ago

Pretty sure everyone who wants gov data collection of private individuals would want this to be illegal as well. I'm disappointed to find most of the complaining on this thread about businesses collecting personal data, rather than the government. Even more so that the first comment's top response regarding this is shooting it down because of an imagined loophole. It disgusted me about CCPA that a private company can have a breach and be fined millions, but the CA govt is immune. Same thing here, and it should disgust everyone who supposedly cares about privacy.