6 ms·

> 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 aw

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Lets 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.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I'm not at all talking about optional goods and services. > 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 Or if you pay rent, own real estate or a car, buy anything using a method other than cash, have electrical or other utility service, etc. You are forced to give out your information for almost everything you need in order to live in modern society.
mortify 3y ago
The courts seem to place little to no value on privacy. Within simple interaction I agree, but disagree when it comes to aggregate data. Maybe I tell Amazon some info, Wayfair different info, and Vitacost something else. A 3rd party can aggregate that into a new superset that I didn't give anyone explicitly. This goes well-beyond in-store surveillance and expands potentially and in-reality to full-time surveillance: when your smart thermostat senses you are home, when your car is moving, etc.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  Someone needs to go into a court room and demonstrate to the judge and/or jury that their personal data is available for sale. Then ask them if they expected that data to be private.
LatteLazy 3y ago
If it involves technology newer than the steam engine, the average court is badly out of its depth...
bob_theslob646 3y ago
Is that because the user signed it away in the terms and conditions?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It's more straightforward than that. I have a constitutional protection against the government searching my stuff without a warrant. However, the constitution only restricts governmental actions, not the actions of citizens or other private entities. So, the government can't search my records without a warrant -- but if a private entity has any data on me whatsoever, there's no prohibition on that entity providing it, and law enforcement can ask (as opposed to demand) anything they want, just like any of us can. All they do is ask that party for the data and if that party wants to, they can provide it. You don't have to agree to this in any contract, T&C, or anything of the like. Private entities have the right to do anything they like with data (or property) they legally control by default. You'd have to have a contract with them that explicitly prohibits them from sharing. In other words, it's opt-out, not opt-in. Legally, it's no different than cops knocking on your neighbors doors and asking them if they've seen you doing sketchy things. The neighbors don't have to comply with the request, but most will.

> 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 ago

I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Lets 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.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I'm not at all talking about optional goods and services. > 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 Or if you pay rent, own real estate or a car, buy anything using a method other than cash, have electrical or other utility service, etc. You are forced to give out your information for almost everything you need in order to live in modern society.

mortify 3y ago

The courts seem to place little to no value on privacy. Within simple interaction I agree, but disagree when it comes to aggregate data. Maybe I tell Amazon some info, Wayfair different info, and Vitacost something else. A 3rd party can aggregate that into a new superset that I didn't give anyone explicitly. This goes well-beyond in-store surveillance and expands potentially and in-reality to full-time surveillance: when your smart thermostat senses you are home, when your car is moving, etc.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Someone needs to go into a court room and demonstrate to the judge and/or jury that their personal data is available for sale. Then ask them if they expected that data to be private.

LatteLazy 3y ago

If it involves technology newer than the steam engine, the average court is badly out of its depth...

bob_theslob646 3y ago

Is that because the user signed it away in the terms and conditions?

JohnFen 3y ago
It's more straightforward than that. I have a constitutional protection against the government searching my stuff without a warrant. However, the constitution only restricts governmental actions, not the actions of citizens or other private entities. So, the government can't search my records without a warrant -- but if a private entity has any data on me whatsoever, there's no prohibition on that entity providing it, and law enforcement can ask (as opposed to demand) anything they want, just like any of us can. All they do is ask that party for the data and if that party wants to, they can provide it. You don't have to agree to this in any contract, T&C, or anything of the like. Private entities have the right to do anything they like with data (or property) they legally control by default. You'd have to have a contract with them that explicitly prohibits them from sharing. In other words, it's opt-out, not opt-in. Legally, it's no different than cops knocking on your neighbors doors and asking them if they've seen you doing sketchy things. The neighbors don't have to comply with the request, but most will.