5 ms·

They would probably need warrants to get access to the other data within the gov.

LatteLazy 4y ago
That is what confuses me. The data is freely available for things like undermining democracy, the rule of law, having an internal US coup etc. But using it to solve murders would be overreach.
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  In an interview with Seymour Hersh recently he also mentioned how in the George W Bush era, the FBI was illegally using NSA wiretap on Americans to prosecute cases. In many instances he said, the oversight actually does work. Sometimes though, it doesn't.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  It isn't overreach if you have a warrant. Seriously, police (and agencies like the FBI) already abuse any power they have and should have more oversight. These government agencies already undermine democracy - usually in other countries, though - and I'm not sure of any example of this sort of thing being purchased to undermine democracy (except at government levels). Sure, it could be used like that, but folks have monitored locations of assassination targets long, long before we ever had such technology. All that said, I don't think this sort of information should be for sale to anyone. If the police agencies actually need such a thing, they should have limited scope and a warrant. The larger the scope, the more folks should have to sign off on the warrant. Police - because of their power - shouldn't have free access to such things even if the criminals have them. Following "rule of law" doesn't mean folks are doing immoral or wrong things as the laws aren't always just - and often, the methods of change include illegal things, hopefully nonviolent.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    > police (and agencies like the FBI) already abuse any power they have Do you know anybody who works in law enforcement? I do and they've told me that if they screw around and don't follow procedure or don't get a warrant then the perp will walk.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      You are assuming they violate these rights out of a need to seek justice. Most of the times it's ego or just bad police. There are hundreds of examples; so much these channels reporting on them have a lot of content. Junkyard News: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMCSd9ZNL0nshOhXwtfIJBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMCSd9ZNL0nshOhXwtfIJBA Indisputable: https://www.youtube.com/@IndisputableTYT https://www.youtube.com/@IndisputableTYT There are many, many other channels, most of them local to where the person lives. It's gotten so bad an entire industry has spawned reporting on it. I have hope though, now that all this is out and body cameras are almost everywhere, you're starting to see prosecution of some of these bad police.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Alright. Hundreds of examples. Hundreds sounds like a big number. How many LEOs are there in the United States? A quick Google search says there is ~670,000. Therefore hundreds is a relatively small number. Especially when many act like a majority of police are corrupt and bad rule breakers.
        Clubber 4y ago
        I'm glad it doesn't bother you, you seem to be ok with it, but it sure bothers me. I don't like being afraid of police, particularly when I don't break laws. There's some egregious stuff going on, and most of the time it gets covered up. I hope it doesn't happen to you or anyone in your family.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        It doesn't bother me because it's statistically insignificant, however I am not okay with it. They can and should do better.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    One of the issues with clandestine programs is you won't KNOW they undermined democracy at home for years (if ever). That's why they're banned. Generally I agree, though "It isn't overreach if you have a warrant." is (forgive me) wishful thinking. If real courts with real judges were considering a real right to privacy that would be true. But we are well past that. And that's without considerations for things like Parallel Construction...
    - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
      That is true about clandestine programs: This has little to do with current tech, though, and of course folks invested are going to use the tools of today to do it today. I know overreach still happens and I truly think we could do better - but I'd rather have it than not.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  [flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Welcome to HN. Many on this site make their money from ads and data collection. Any talk of regulating that is unpopular.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  What the hell are you talking about?
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    The downside to running a huge domestic surveillance state is that it undermines democracy and the rule of law. The upside is you could use it to catch a lot of murderers, rapists etc. The US IS running just such a state. And democracy is in peril. But the US does NOT use it for the only upside it might bring: less serious crime. The US has created the worst of all worlds. Maximum risk, minimum benefit. Is that clear?
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      Nice tangent. How’s this related to the fact agencies need warrants to pull data from other, unrelated, agencies?
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
        It's related because the point of warrants is to minimise this sort of activity. But having already maxed out the amount of activity (recording all that data from everyone all the time), the warrants become pointless. The moment the data is being collected, the risk is there. Paperwork is useful ONLY to the extent it stops collection, it's not a end in itself. It's just a means to minimisation. That is about 90% of my point. Everything ELSE is tangental. What I have written is basically the key point on mass surveillance. Everything else is at best extra and at worst irrelevant to the actual points.
- lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  Well remember that politics is about legitimacy. If you just give permission to use data like that (e.g. for solving ordinary crimes) then it’s a whole other game than folks sneaking around for data. With the latter, you will have whistleblowers.

That is what confuses me. The data is freely available for things like undermining democracy, the rule of law, having an internal US coup etc. But using it to solve murders would be overreach.

Synaesthesia 4y ago
In an interview with Seymour Hersh recently he also mentioned how in the George W Bush era, the FBI was illegally using NSA wiretap on Americans to prosecute cases. In many instances he said, the oversight actually does work. Sometimes though, it doesn't.
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
It isn't overreach if you have a warrant. Seriously, police (and agencies like the FBI) already abuse any power they have and should have more oversight. These government agencies already undermine democracy - usually in other countries, though - and I'm not sure of any example of this sort of thing being purchased to undermine democracy (except at government levels). Sure, it could be used like that, but folks have monitored locations of assassination targets long, long before we ever had such technology. All that said, I don't think this sort of information should be for sale to anyone. If the police agencies actually need such a thing, they should have limited scope and a warrant. The larger the scope, the more folks should have to sign off on the warrant. Police - because of their power - shouldn't have free access to such things even if the criminals have them. Following "rule of law" doesn't mean folks are doing immoral or wrong things as the laws aren't always just - and often, the methods of change include illegal things, hopefully nonviolent.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > police (and agencies like the FBI) already abuse any power they have Do you know anybody who works in law enforcement? I do and they've told me that if they screw around and don't follow procedure or don't get a warrant then the perp will walk.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    You are assuming they violate these rights out of a need to seek justice. Most of the times it's ego or just bad police. There are hundreds of examples; so much these channels reporting on them have a lot of content. Junkyard News: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMCSd9ZNL0nshOhXwtfIJBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMCSd9ZNL0nshOhXwtfIJBA Indisputable: https://www.youtube.com/@IndisputableTYT https://www.youtube.com/@IndisputableTYT There are many, many other channels, most of them local to where the person lives. It's gotten so bad an entire industry has spawned reporting on it. I have hope though, now that all this is out and body cameras are almost everywhere, you're starting to see prosecution of some of these bad police.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Alright. Hundreds of examples. Hundreds sounds like a big number. How many LEOs are there in the United States? A quick Google search says there is ~670,000. Therefore hundreds is a relatively small number. Especially when many act like a majority of police are corrupt and bad rule breakers.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        I'm glad it doesn't bother you, you seem to be ok with it, but it sure bothers me. I don't like being afraid of police, particularly when I don't break laws. There's some egregious stuff going on, and most of the time it gets covered up. I hope it doesn't happen to you or anyone in your family.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        It doesn't bother me because it's statistically insignificant, however I am not okay with it. They can and should do better.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  One of the issues with clandestine programs is you won't KNOW they undermined democracy at home for years (if ever). That's why they're banned. Generally I agree, though "It isn't overreach if you have a warrant." is (forgive me) wishful thinking. If real courts with real judges were considering a real right to privacy that would be true. But we are well past that. And that's without considerations for things like Parallel Construction...
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    That is true about clandestine programs: This has little to do with current tech, though, and of course folks invested are going to use the tools of today to do it today. I know overreach still happens and I truly think we could do better - but I'd rather have it than not.
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
[flagged]
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Welcome to HN. Many on this site make their money from ads and data collection. Any talk of regulating that is unpopular.
edgyquant 4y ago
What the hell are you talking about?
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  The downside to running a huge domestic surveillance state is that it undermines democracy and the rule of law. The upside is you could use it to catch a lot of murderers, rapists etc. The US IS running just such a state. And democracy is in peril. But the US does NOT use it for the only upside it might bring: less serious crime. The US has created the worst of all worlds. Maximum risk, minimum benefit. Is that clear?
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Nice tangent. How’s this related to the fact agencies need warrants to pull data from other, unrelated, agencies?
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      It's related because the point of warrants is to minimise this sort of activity. But having already maxed out the amount of activity (recording all that data from everyone all the time), the warrants become pointless. The moment the data is being collected, the risk is there. Paperwork is useful ONLY to the extent it stops collection, it's not a end in itself. It's just a means to minimisation. That is about 90% of my point. Everything ELSE is tangental. What I have written is basically the key point on mass surveillance. Everything else is at best extra and at worst irrelevant to the actual points.
lambdasquirrel 4y ago
Well remember that politics is about legitimacy. If you just give permission to use data like that (e.g. for solving ordinary crimes) then it’s a whole other game than folks sneaking around for data. With the latter, you will have whistleblowers.