6 ms·
The trouble here is not FBI at all. This purchase is just a proof that privacy protections given by US law are totally ineffective. As soon as the data is on
by miga 4y ago
The trouble here is not FBI at all.
This purchase is just a proof that privacy protections given by US law are totally ineffective.
As soon as the data is on the open market, no GDPR, and no US law protects the customer, since public prosecution is not interested in blatant violation of privacy here.
This is also the main reason why EU continuously threatens US with withdrawing _safe harbor_ provisions.
As soon as the data enters US, the open market assures it will be widely available contrary to all regulations.
- geraldhh 4y ago> EU continuously threatens US with withdrawing _safe harbor_ provisions safe harbor was invalidated in 2015, replaced by "Privacy Shield" which was overturned in 2020. Now "Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework" is being worked on but i suspect it won't hold up either because muricans can't even protect their own citizens from governmental spying let alone foreigners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Atlantic_Data_Privacy_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Atlantic_Data_Privacy_Fr...
- throw_a_grenade 4y agoNARRATOR: It's year 2068. ECJ just declared "EU-US Whatever Shield, This Time For Real" invalid in the case known as Schrems LXIV.
- petesergeant 4y agoI'd agree that the FBI using legal means to get their hands on data isn't proof the FBI has done something wrong, but I would worry that if the FBI came to rely on it, they might be motivated to further impede better privacy protections.
- tremon 4y ago> the FBI using legal means to get their hands on data isn't proof the FBI has done something wrong Perhaps not, but the FBI using one method to get their hands on data without a warrant, while a different method to acquire that same data would require a warrant, is definitely a sign that something is going wrong.
- germinalphrase 4y agoIt certainly suggests that ‘data which would require a warrant’ shouldn’t be freely for sale.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoPlease provide a potential valid use of this data in line with the FBIs mission that doesn't imply circumventing due process?
- woofcat 4y agoIf it's publically for sale is it really circumventing due process? Do the police need a search warrant to lookup who owns a property, or leverage the white pages?
- HardlyCurious 4y ago[dead]
- ethbr0 4y agoAnonymized clustering and graph tracing, to identify the geographic interconnectedness (or lack thereof) of criminal organizations. It would be very useful to the FBI to identify whether they're looking at a solo criminal enterprise or a multi-state organization. I'll gripe about intel community abuses as much as anyone else, but it's a lack of imagination to say there are no valid, privacy-preserving uses for this. Historically, Google rightly identified PII as the goose that lays golden eggs, and so voluntarily put safeguards in place around it to prevent individual abuses from killing it. The FBI could do the same. I doubt it'd be effective, given political pressure from threats and constantly changing leadership, but it's technically possible.
- HardlyCurious 4y ago[dead]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sigzero 4y agoIt is PUBLIC information. That is not circumventing anything. The issue here is NOT the FBI. It is the DATA being PUBLIC information.
- ethbr0 4y agoExactly. The root issue is that the US doesn't attach a dollar value to privacy. Which is to say that if I have {personally identifiable information}, I have no innate {dollar risk} to holding it, outside of specific protected classes like personal health information (PHI). If we wanted to fix this in one swoop, we could just... quantify that risk in $ terms. It largely worked as intended in healthcare via HIPAA. - If you store PII, you are required to submit to a yearly audit by an independent third party - If you have a breach that exposes PII, you are penalized order-of profits (or equivalent measure) for a year - If you are a US company that obtains PII from a source outside your company, you are required to obtain and retain a full chain of custody of the source of that data. If you originate or sell PII, you are required to furnish a full chain of custody of that data. If you are found with PII without a valid chain of custody, you are dissolved as a company That this would make some businesses like Experian or Facebook/Google's ad targeting products unprofitable to run is intended -- they're only profitable now because they don't have to pay to violate people's privacy.
- afpx 4y agoThe US Supreme Court says that there's no right to privacy. So, I doubt the government is motivated.
- krapp 4y agoIt's surprising how many Americans seem cool with losing such a fundamental right because it was the basis for getting rid of Roe v. Wade. I guess they assume their guns will keep the government out of their affairs.
- edgyquant 4y agoPrivacy is not a fundamental right. Not everything the internet likes is a right divined by God.
- krapp 4y agoBecause only "the internet" cares about privacy?
- antiframe 4y agoRights are not divined by fictitious entities. They're created by agreements of humans. Where do fundamental rights come from?
- bassrattle 4y ago"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- seanw444 4y agoThis is a stupid argument, and one that will never be won.
- EGreg 4y agoI remember writing about this exact issue years ago: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169 As a left-libertarian I am concerned about not just states but corporations too