5 ms·
It's pretty crazy that our legislators and courts haven't addressed this loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to buy data that they can't legally colle
by wefarrell 3y ago
It's pretty crazy that our legislators and courts haven't addressed this loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to buy data that they can't legally collect.
This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment.
- Analemma_ 3y agoidlewords said a long time ago that "If the data is gathered at all, the government can get to it; whether it is on private or public servers is an irrelevant implementation detail. The only way to keep data out of government hands is to not collect it". Nobody wanted to listen to this because taking it seriously would mean tearing down large portions of the ad infrastructure that keeps the tech industry humming. But he was still right even if nobody wants to admit it.
- activiation 3y agoFor emails in the cloud, and probably other data, they don't need a warrant if it's 6 months or older anyways. So they probably can force them to give it out for free. But either way they have a black budget so we are fucked in many ways. https://emailserverprovider.com/emails-texts-documents-older-than-6-months-no-warrant-needed-to-read-if-stored-on-remote-server-aka-the-cloud/ https://emailserverprovider.com/emails-texts-documents-older...
- qingcharles 3y agoIt's no longer that black and white since US v. Carpenter. It needs someone to try it again. In that case SCOTUS did cite Warshak[1], which while not binding over the whole nation, is persuasive and clearly the older 2018 SCOTUS showed their potential interest in ending the Third Party Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine [1] https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2010/12/17/court-finds-fourth-amendment-protects-email-privacy/ https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2010/12/17/court-finds-fou...
- activiation 3y agoThat's good to hear
- 0xParlay 3y agoHow tempting would it be to use blackmail to influence a democratic election. Given this national security blackmail apparatus exists how can we be sure this insidious rootkit hasn’t already been deployed? Epstein was able to have bill gates in his back pocket due to knowing about his affair. Imagine having access to that kind of leverage on every reporter journalist activist politician etc. I can’t be sure the integrity of our democracy is even still intact
- rqtwteye 3y agoThat’s the beauty of the current situation. Instead of government it’s private businesses that are building a surveillance machine of unprecedented scale. The Nazis or Stalin would have loved to have such infrastructure.
- krapp 3y agoThe Holocaust likely would have been impossible (or at least far more limited in scale) if IBM hadn't sold them the tabulators they used to collate census data on their Jewish population.
- sacnoradhq 3y agoIt's by design. The politicians love the money from GEO Group, CoreCivic, and MTC for expanding prisons and incarcerating more poor people and minorities for minor infractions. I'm sure the politicians absolutely hate money from LexisNexus too.
- daniel-cussen 3y ago[dead]
- staticautomatic 3y agoAs someone who brokered Lexis PII in a past life, what scares me about this is how dirty the data are. That said, it’s not a loophole. State and federal laws make certain data public or quasi-public for limited purposes, and I can’t think of any reason the government should be prohibited from buying it for one of those purposes. The fourth amendment is designed to prevent the government from collecting information that is distinguished as categorically private by definition.
- bob_theslob646 3y ago>" how dirty the data are." What do you mean?
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoThis data is often of terrible quality. Source: I worked for the part of LN that deals with this data.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 3y ago> This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment. Yes, it does. Hopefully, this practice will be made illegal in the absence of a search warrant.
- ethanbond 3y agoIt’s not really a loophole. It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Nothing “sneaky” about it, just the case law hasn’t caught up to the amount and quality of privately-held data. More entities should be subject to the telco exception to 3rd Party Doctrine.
- JohnFen 3y ago> It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Doesn't mean it's not a loophole. The law is filled with loopholes that aren't sneaky at all. This is a loophole around the fourth amendment, and it allows law enforcement to violate people's constitutional rights without consequence.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago> This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment. Courts seem to think that this information does not have an expectation of privacy since the user gave it away.
- constantly 3y agoI don’t like the government being able to do this, but common sense seems to dictate that in cases where the user has freely given out their information and where a private citizen can go buy that information, the government should be able to buy it.
- JohnFen 3y ago> in cases where the user has freely given out their information How often have people freely given their information? I'd argue that if you have to give out information in order to live, that doesn't count as freely giving it. That's being compelled to give it. In US society, it's literally impossible to live without giving your information to a variety of entities.
- constantly 3y agoI freely give out my information when I choose to use Facebook, Instagram, MySpace, google maps while logged into google, sweetgreen for ordering for pick up, Uber eats while ordering for delivery. There are myriad of cases where people choose to give out their personal information — and yes before you protest: I can live without having my Sweetgreen ready when I arrive (versus ordering at the terminal when I arrive) or without Uber delivering my meal (I can go to the restaurant). I acknowledge there are cases where it’s effectively impossible in modern society, such as with giving out your info to get a cell phone, but believe by verbiage “freely giving out information” accounts for this.
- pixl97 3y agoLets say you live in a cul-de-sac for this. I setup a camera recording everything you do in your lawn and document when leave and come back to your house. I bundle this up with everyone else's information and sell this to the government. Where was your "freely giving information out at". You quickly turn into "even going outside removes any privacy I have and the government can pretty much track everything I do". Also, going to those stores will gladly track you with cameras too. You're left farming weeds in the mountains to get away from this.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y agoThe government hasn't searched nor seized anything. This is identical to if somebody found out your favorite color is Blue, gave that info to a newspaper reporter, and the newspaper sold the information on the street for a nickle a paper. The government bought one of the papers.
- backtoyoujim 3y agoI'm not sure how you equate agencies like the FBI and CIA with newspapers. Seems like a really weak argument from here. One is a commercial venture with zero license to kill or interfere with foreign political processes.