3 ms·

I'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

I'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 ago
  It certainly suggests that ‘data which would require a warrant’ shouldn’t be freely for sale.
HardlyCurious 4y ago
Please provide a potential valid use of this data in line with the FBIs mission that doesn't imply circumventing due process?
- woofcat 4y ago
  If 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 ago
  Anonymized 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 ago
  It is PUBLIC information. That is not circumventing anything. The issue here is NOT the FBI. It is the DATA being PUBLIC information.
  - HardlyCurious 4y ago
    [dead]

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 ago
It certainly suggests that ‘data which would require a warrant’ shouldn’t be freely for sale.

HardlyCurious 4y ago

Please provide a potential valid use of this data in line with the FBIs mission that doesn't imply circumventing due process?

woofcat 4y ago
If 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 ago
Anonymized 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 ago
It is PUBLIC information. That is not circumventing anything. The issue here is NOT the FBI. It is the DATA being PUBLIC information.
- HardlyCurious 4y ago
  [dead]