5 ms·
I'm not sure why the reaction to the news that a citizen organization that is non-law enforcement is tracking user data should be "well, it's legal if you have
by TechBro8615 4y ago
I'm not sure why the reaction to the news that a citizen organization that is non-law enforcement is tracking user data should be "well, it's legal if you have an (R) next to your name." The better question is, why is this data available in the first place?
If senators were actually interested in fighting "big tech" beyond making a show of "banning TikTok" and "investigating Twitter," they would spend the time to craft privacy legislation making it illegal to collect, store or transmit this location data in the first place.
Perhaps someone should start a non-profit to buy and publish the location data of anyone who spends time in the Capitol building. Maybe then we would see some movement on reasonable legislation to curtail this practice.
- anigbrowl 4y agoPart of the reason for the impasse is that there is no explicit Constitutional right to privacy in the US (other than that provided by the 4th amendment, which has arguably been hollowed out in its own right). But the first amendment does confer protection for publication of information, notwithstanding that it may be published for sale to other businesses and abused for everything from irritating robocalls to complete surveillance. So that makes legislation a steep hill to climb, as interested parties are likely to immediately challenge the constitutionality of anything that makes it through the (often dysfunctional) legislative process. There's also the less formal reality that business is culturally privileged in the US, and the trope of busybody lawmakers interfering with honest business people who are creating jobs and prosperity is easy to market.
- lrvick 4y agoRelevant: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-oliver-data-brokers_n_6253db8ae4b066ecde08a5f8 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-oliver-data-brokers_n_62...