4 ms·

This is bad, but the data is for sale. I think the solution it not allowing data sales. It seems odd that we’re upset that the FBI did what anyone else in the w

This is bad, but the data is for sale. I think the solution it not allowing data sales. It seems odd that we’re upset that the FBI did what anyone else in the world can do, but data on US citizens. When I read that, I though “duh, of course, everyone buys data.”

uncletammy 4y ago
" Anyone else in the world " cant build a criminal case against you using parallel construction tactics while bypassing American's constitutional right to due process.
- voiper1 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure "due process" means being tried in a court of law. Buying data doesn't skip being tried in court. I assume you're implicitly referencing that the FBI is skipping getting a warrant, but why do they need a warrant? Your information is already publicly for sale. As other's have mentioned, it's not really an FBI issue, it's a general privacy issue - that companies are collecting, compiling, and selling this information and it's all legal. Which is darned hard to get people to care about - because it's convenient to give your information away. I know about these things and still use google for almost everything (I finally moved my business email to fastmail... but didn't yet bother to move my personal email.)
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > Buying data doesn't skip being tried in court. That's an interesting point. Wonder how foolproof/incorruptible the chain of custody is supposed to be for the provided data? We've probably all worked on IT systems at one point or another that the outside world regards as really good, but the admins / ops staff know is really held together with sticky tape + bubblegum. Sometimes with data not quite being stored as it was entered (heh MySQL springs to mind).
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      > Wonder how foolproof/incorruptible the chain of custody is supposed to be for the provided data? Not enough any prosecutor would prosecute someone based on that data alone. However, I do see a case where the data provided could be used to further an investigation. And in some ways, that makes sense. The data is a clue, but it's not what is going to put someone away. It's a log entry. A log entry is only as good as your logs and provides a clue for further investigation, but it's not where you stop the investigation. I'm not commenting on the legality or whether access to this data is right, merely my assumptions on how this data could be useful in one aspect that doesn't necessarily need it to be foolproof or incorruptible.
- rcme 4y ago
  Buying data alleviates the need for parallel reconstruction. You don’t need a secret, unconstitutional case if you’re legally buying data.
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  It’s not the right to due process that stops the FBI from gathering whatever data they want on you (all the right to due process says is that your life, liberty, and property can’t be abridged without due process of law) The right to privacy isn’t exactly even a right in the US constitution, it’s a construction out of a combination of many of the amendments in the bill of rights. And as such anything that doesn’t specifically conflict with a part of the bill of rights is fair game for data collection on citizens. And, because the bill of rights was created such a long time ago, the idea of the government being able to buy such a massive amount of data on you from third parties that it would be a violation of your privacy isn’t exactly written in as a problem. The constitution is getting to the point where it really needs amendments to clarify things for the digital age.
  - njarboe 4y ago
    The US was founded on the principle that the federal government only has the right to do things that are specified in the constitution. The States and the people, by default, retain all other rights. This idea has been greatly eroded in the last century, especially using the Commerce Clause, but could be revived with not too many Supreme Court decisions. Many of the founders were concerned that having a bill of rights would lead to exactly the idea that you are professing. Namely that if a right is not listed in the Constitution then that right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifically states the principle that the Constitution gives a limited set of powers to federal government by the people (and the States) and everything else is to unrestricted at the federal level. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    - NineStarPoint 4y ago
      That’s sort of an orthogonal idea in my mind. Yes, the Federal Government has a list of the types of things it is allowed to pursue. This is a separate idea from the bill of rights, which essentially says “while the federal government is doing the things it is allowed to do, here are things they are not allowed to do in pursuing those actions”. So what you’re talking about it more relevant to the question “should the FBI be allowed to exist at all.” Is a federal bureau of investigation something that the federal government is allowed to make under the constitution, and if so what sorts of situations and crimes are they allowed to investigate? If you don’t believe the FBI should exist at all, then the sort of argument you’re giving makes sense. But what the rules as to the Federal Government’s allowed sphere’s of actions don’t say is how they are to go about pursuing those actions. (“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;” is a right of the federal government, but no mention is made of how those tribunals should be structured or how they should function.) So we get to the question of “If the FBI is allowed to exist, what sort of methods is it allowed to use to investigate.” And that’s where the bill of rights comes in, excluding certain types of actions. Or the general question could be stated “Is it disallowed for the federal government to purchase data about its citizens from private entities in pursuit of the rights it is granted by the constitution.”
- prepend 4y ago
  True, but I’m much more likely to be harmed by getting diabetes and mental illness due to advertising targeted so well as to be ubiquitous and effective. So while the FBI buying data causes great harm for a few thousand, everyone else buying data causes moderate harm for pretty much every other human.
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    The FBI would be the secret police if the wrong people ever get in power. Is it already forgotten that the FBI used to spy on King and the civil rights movement?
ajross 4y ago
That's exactly it. This article is about the wrong half of the problem. I mean, of course, if you have a law enforcement agency with an emphasis on surveillance, they're going to employ open source (in the intelligence sense) methods where practical. Duh. The question is what is on the market, not whether or not the cops are going to buy it if it's there. So... what is on the market? It's not in the article!
colpabar 4y ago
Sure, but then we have to ask which will be more difficult, preventing the sale of all user data by everyone, or preventing law enforcement/gov agencies from buying it? I want the former, but the latter may be easier to stop first, and only focusing on the former seems like letting perfect be the enemy of good.
- prepend 4y ago
  I think it’s easier to prevent all than just the FBI. Data should not be collected on individuals and sold. Having a blanket ban is easier to enforce than a special law just for FBI. You’d also want to prevent other law enforcement. And you’d want to allow some stuff like user feedback data, etc etc.
  - landemva 4y ago
    > Data should not be collected on individuals and sold. Am wondering the size of the privacy market. How much extra are you willing to pay each year to have your top-10 apps not collect and sell your data?
Teever 4y ago
Agreed. the answer to this problem is to crowd source funding to buy the same data and find FBI agents in the data, and release it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
Vrondi 4y ago
We aren't upset that the FBI "did what anyone else would do". We're upset that the FBI used this to do an end-run around the federal laws.
- prepend 4y ago
  But it’s not an end run because the data are available generally for sale. The FBI can stand outside your house and look in the windows without a warrant. That’s not an end-run around laws.
  - Teever 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure they can't without a warrant because that's harassment? Which brings us to another point. If I was to meticulously stalk and document the activities of one individual that would obviously be stalking -- but if a group does that to everyone that's a successful business? How does that work?

uncletammy 4y ago

" Anyone else in the world " cant build a criminal case against you using parallel construction tactics while bypassing American's constitutional right to due process.

voiper1 4y ago
I'm pretty sure "due process" means being tried in a court of law. Buying data doesn't skip being tried in court. I assume you're implicitly referencing that the FBI is skipping getting a warrant, but why do they need a warrant? Your information is already publicly for sale. As other's have mentioned, it's not really an FBI issue, it's a general privacy issue - that companies are collecting, compiling, and selling this information and it's all legal. Which is darned hard to get people to care about - because it's convenient to give your information away. I know about these things and still use google for almost everything (I finally moved my business email to fastmail... but didn't yet bother to move my personal email.)
- justinclift 4y ago
  > Buying data doesn't skip being tried in court. That's an interesting point. Wonder how foolproof/incorruptible the chain of custody is supposed to be for the provided data? We've probably all worked on IT systems at one point or another that the outside world regards as really good, but the admins / ops staff know is really held together with sticky tape + bubblegum. Sometimes with data not quite being stored as it was entered (heh MySQL springs to mind).
  - jasonlotito 4y ago
    > Wonder how foolproof/incorruptible the chain of custody is supposed to be for the provided data? Not enough any prosecutor would prosecute someone based on that data alone. However, I do see a case where the data provided could be used to further an investigation. And in some ways, that makes sense. The data is a clue, but it's not what is going to put someone away. It's a log entry. A log entry is only as good as your logs and provides a clue for further investigation, but it's not where you stop the investigation. I'm not commenting on the legality or whether access to this data is right, merely my assumptions on how this data could be useful in one aspect that doesn't necessarily need it to be foolproof or incorruptible.
rcme 4y ago
Buying data alleviates the need for parallel reconstruction. You don’t need a secret, unconstitutional case if you’re legally buying data.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
It’s not the right to due process that stops the FBI from gathering whatever data they want on you (all the right to due process says is that your life, liberty, and property can’t be abridged without due process of law) The right to privacy isn’t exactly even a right in the US constitution, it’s a construction out of a combination of many of the amendments in the bill of rights. And as such anything that doesn’t specifically conflict with a part of the bill of rights is fair game for data collection on citizens. And, because the bill of rights was created such a long time ago, the idea of the government being able to buy such a massive amount of data on you from third parties that it would be a violation of your privacy isn’t exactly written in as a problem. The constitution is getting to the point where it really needs amendments to clarify things for the digital age.
- njarboe 4y ago
  The US was founded on the principle that the federal government only has the right to do things that are specified in the constitution. The States and the people, by default, retain all other rights. This idea has been greatly eroded in the last century, especially using the Commerce Clause, but could be revived with not too many Supreme Court decisions. Many of the founders were concerned that having a bill of rights would lead to exactly the idea that you are professing. Namely that if a right is not listed in the Constitution then that right does not exist. The tenth amendment specifically states the principle that the Constitution gives a limited set of powers to federal government by the people (and the States) and everything else is to unrestricted at the federal level. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
  - NineStarPoint 4y ago
    That’s sort of an orthogonal idea in my mind. Yes, the Federal Government has a list of the types of things it is allowed to pursue. This is a separate idea from the bill of rights, which essentially says “while the federal government is doing the things it is allowed to do, here are things they are not allowed to do in pursuing those actions”. So what you’re talking about it more relevant to the question “should the FBI be allowed to exist at all.” Is a federal bureau of investigation something that the federal government is allowed to make under the constitution, and if so what sorts of situations and crimes are they allowed to investigate? If you don’t believe the FBI should exist at all, then the sort of argument you’re giving makes sense. But what the rules as to the Federal Government’s allowed sphere’s of actions don’t say is how they are to go about pursuing those actions. (“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;” is a right of the federal government, but no mention is made of how those tribunals should be structured or how they should function.) So we get to the question of “If the FBI is allowed to exist, what sort of methods is it allowed to use to investigate.” And that’s where the bill of rights comes in, excluding certain types of actions. Or the general question could be stated “Is it disallowed for the federal government to purchase data about its citizens from private entities in pursuit of the rights it is granted by the constitution.”
prepend 4y ago
True, but I’m much more likely to be harmed by getting diabetes and mental illness due to advertising targeted so well as to be ubiquitous and effective. So while the FBI buying data causes great harm for a few thousand, everyone else buying data causes moderate harm for pretty much every other human.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  The FBI would be the secret police if the wrong people ever get in power. Is it already forgotten that the FBI used to spy on King and the civil rights movement?

ajross 4y ago

That's exactly it. This article is about the wrong half of the problem. I mean, of course, if you have a law enforcement agency with an emphasis on surveillance, they're going to employ open source (in the intelligence sense) methods where practical. Duh. The question is what is on the market, not whether or not the cops are going to buy it if it's there. So... what is on the market? It's not in the article!

colpabar 4y ago

Sure, but then we have to ask which will be more difficult, preventing the sale of all user data by everyone, or preventing law enforcement/gov agencies from buying it? I want the former, but the latter may be easier to stop first, and only focusing on the former seems like letting perfect be the enemy of good.

prepend 4y ago
I think it’s easier to prevent all than just the FBI. Data should not be collected on individuals and sold. Having a blanket ban is easier to enforce than a special law just for FBI. You’d also want to prevent other law enforcement. And you’d want to allow some stuff like user feedback data, etc etc.
- landemva 4y ago
  > Data should not be collected on individuals and sold. Am wondering the size of the privacy market. How much extra are you willing to pay each year to have your top-10 apps not collect and sell your data?

Teever 4y ago

Agreed. the answer to this problem is to crowd source funding to buy the same data and find FBI agents in the data, and release it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

Vrondi 4y ago

We aren't upset that the FBI "did what anyone else would do". We're upset that the FBI used this to do an end-run around the federal laws.

prepend 4y ago
But it’s not an end run because the data are available generally for sale. The FBI can stand outside your house and look in the windows without a warrant. That’s not an end-run around laws.
- Teever 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure they can't without a warrant because that's harassment? Which brings us to another point. If I was to meticulously stalk and document the activities of one individual that would obviously be stalking -- but if a group does that to everyone that's a successful business? How does that work?