2 ms·
> without any warrant or oversight How would that work? A warrant signed off by a judge is required to compel companies to comply with requests.
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> without any warrant or oversight
How would that work? A warrant signed off by a judge is required to compel companies to comply with requests.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> A warrant signed off by a judge is required to compel companies to comply with requests. It’s…not. Administrative subpoenas (some of which have their own unique names, like “National Security Letters”) are a thing, and if legally valid compliance is mandatory. Sure, ultimately, if there is a disagreement about validity that can be taken to court, and a judge will be involved, but that’s not the same thing as a warrant.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoInteresting. It appears they can only request non-content information (metadata). You admit that there is oversight but you think it's inadequate?
- zerocrates 4y agoThe state of the law in the US is that information you share with a company no longer carries an expectation of privacy, so the government can get it without a warrant. This is called the "third-party doctrine." Any areas where higher scrutiny is required have been specifically added by statute. There's been some slight pushback recently against this state of affairs from the Supreme Court in the area of geolocation data, but the general rule still stands.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoThe federal government is the biggest spender on the planet. Sure, if they ask you for some data it wants and you refuse, they'll need to resort to legalistic methods of forcing you to get that data. Or they can dangle the prospect of their spending going elsewhere if you don't comply. Can you afford to turn down the largest economic entity on the planet?