3 ms·

It’s so obviously unconstitutional. If Congress gives them a pass, I don’t see how they would explain allowing agencies to sidestep the Constitution. At that p

by mc32 3y ago

It’s so obviously unconstitutional. If Congress gives them a pass, I don’t see how they would explain allowing agencies to sidestep the Constitution. At that point they’re not upholding the Constitution any more. The only chance is bringing it up to the Supreme Court.

petesergeant 3y ago
For those of us not well-read on the Constitution, which specific parts does it violate?
- iinnPP 3y ago
  I would say it qualifies under unreasonable. It's unreasonable to expect every citizen to understand when and where their data is being taken. It's unreasonable to expect people to understand what actions lead to what data points. It's unreasonable to assess data for unrelated traits that don't match every person perfectly. It's unreasonable to trust a company selling data to not at some point include illegal data. Certainly not without a verified chain of custody. It is unreasonable for the government to bypass the constitution by using limited interpretation of language.
  - krapp 3y ago
    The "unreasonable" part of the Fourth Amendment refers only to "unreasonable search and seizure" by law enforcement, not to any and every subjectively unreasonable aspect of society or law.
    - troll_v_bridge 3y ago
      Collecting data is specifically searching and seizing, and in an unreasonable manner without warrant.
    - weard_beard 3y ago
      … they’re using the data to perform searches …
    - haswell 3y ago
      I'd state what the parent comment says a bit differently: the availability of data for purchase does not make its purchase by law enforcement magically "reasonable". > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In a digital world, one's "Person" and "effects" have become inseparable from the phones/platforms we communicate with. Participation in many cases is not a choice if one is to function in society. The requirement that warrants are issued only upon establishment of probable cause also highlights the issue here. It seems highly dubious that a company holding your data and selling that data is somehow an acceptable end-around the warrant requirement. Is this all technically legal? Seems like it might be. Is this what the authors of the 4th amendment had in mind? Seems extremely unlikely.
      - iinnPP 3y ago
        I should have been more clear, but it seems the message got to you correctly. I can't read the 4th amendment and this article and not come to a conflict. It seems obvious to me that it is unreasonable to expect a person (with the average IQ being 94-98) to understand what data on their phone is public or private. It's obvious because we have millions of teenagers believing they have privacy on their phones to a point where they break incredibly consequential laws to store sexualized imagery there. What the average citizen believes is private is where the goal posts should be. So a potential solution is to poll America asking the following question: Donald Trump and Joe Biden would both like to download all the data on your phone to share with the world via press conference. Do you accept? If 50% of people so no, it is unreasonable. Disclaimer: I worked on Geolocation products with the top 3 aggregators and have extensive experience with Palantir.
        lesuorac 3y ago
        Geolocation and your sexts are two separate things so your poll doesn't reflect what is purchased.
    - gravypod 3y ago
      If we allow this logic what is to stop the following situation: 1. Landlord writes into rental agreements that they could have someone inspect the property every year. 2. Sold access to people's apartments to police officers every year. In this situation a third party secured access to something which is traditionally constitutionally protected. This third party is in a position of power that is hard to bargain with (as many tech companies are). Most people wouldn't agree to this if they had the option to say no and would not expect this lease clause to be used this way.
- mc32 3y ago
  Fourth amendment to the constitution. They would need a warrant. Laws don’t evaporate just because it’s in the digital realm.
  - space_fountain 3y ago
    If you have a friend who's willing to report on you for a price and the government pays the price the 4th amendment wouldn't have been violated. Why is is different because it's digital? The government isn't spying on you, it's just paying for information collected legally
    - weard_beard 3y ago
      The government paying a contractor to circumvent the constitution is still the government violating the constitution.
    - mc32 3y ago
      If you call the gov and you confess to something that’s on you. Your friend also cannot just bust into your house and search through your things. Now the government because it has enormous powers behind it and people willing to do the wrong thing on its behalf is specifically limited in what it’s allowed to do.
      - somenits 3y ago
        It depends. If someone breaks into your house with government encouragement, that’s a Fourth Amendment violation. If he breaks into your house because he’s a burglar, and then happens upon something he knows the government would want, and then sells that information to the government, it’s not a Fourth Amendment violation.
        krapp 3y ago
        The question is, if you hold a garage sale and someone buys your stuff and the governments then buys that stuff from whomever you sold it to, is it a Fourth Amendment violation? Because that's what's really happening here. Once you sell your data to Facebook, Twitter, etc, it's no longer "in your house." If you granted third parties license to collect and sell your data under terms of service, then that data no longer belongs to you, and you agreed to that.. To me the bigger problem isn't the government buying data on the open market, it's that data is a market to begin with.

by mc32 3y ago

petesergeant 3y ago

For those of us not well-read on the Constitution, which specific parts does it violate?

iinnPP 3y ago
I would say it qualifies under unreasonable. It's unreasonable to expect every citizen to understand when and where their data is being taken. It's unreasonable to expect people to understand what actions lead to what data points. It's unreasonable to assess data for unrelated traits that don't match every person perfectly. It's unreasonable to trust a company selling data to not at some point include illegal data. Certainly not without a verified chain of custody. It is unreasonable for the government to bypass the constitution by using limited interpretation of language.
- krapp 3y ago
  The "unreasonable" part of the Fourth Amendment refers only to "unreasonable search and seizure" by law enforcement, not to any and every subjectively unreasonable aspect of society or law.
  - troll_v_bridge 3y ago
    Collecting data is specifically searching and seizing, and in an unreasonable manner without warrant.
  - weard_beard 3y ago
    … they’re using the data to perform searches …
  - haswell 3y ago
    I'd state what the parent comment says a bit differently: the availability of data for purchase does not make its purchase by law enforcement magically "reasonable". > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In a digital world, one's "Person" and "effects" have become inseparable from the phones/platforms we communicate with. Participation in many cases is not a choice if one is to function in society. The requirement that warrants are issued only upon establishment of probable cause also highlights the issue here. It seems highly dubious that a company holding your data and selling that data is somehow an acceptable end-around the warrant requirement. Is this all technically legal? Seems like it might be. Is this what the authors of the 4th amendment had in mind? Seems extremely unlikely.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      I should have been more clear, but it seems the message got to you correctly. I can't read the 4th amendment and this article and not come to a conflict. It seems obvious to me that it is unreasonable to expect a person (with the average IQ being 94-98) to understand what data on their phone is public or private. It's obvious because we have millions of teenagers believing they have privacy on their phones to a point where they break incredibly consequential laws to store sexualized imagery there. What the average citizen believes is private is where the goal posts should be. So a potential solution is to poll America asking the following question: Donald Trump and Joe Biden would both like to download all the data on your phone to share with the world via press conference. Do you accept? If 50% of people so no, it is unreasonable. Disclaimer: I worked on Geolocation products with the top 3 aggregators and have extensive experience with Palantir.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        Geolocation and your sexts are two separate things so your poll doesn't reflect what is purchased.
  - gravypod 3y ago
    If we allow this logic what is to stop the following situation: 1. Landlord writes into rental agreements that they could have someone inspect the property every year. 2. Sold access to people's apartments to police officers every year. In this situation a third party secured access to something which is traditionally constitutionally protected. This third party is in a position of power that is hard to bargain with (as many tech companies are). Most people wouldn't agree to this if they had the option to say no and would not expect this lease clause to be used this way.
mc32 3y ago
Fourth amendment to the constitution. They would need a warrant. Laws don’t evaporate just because it’s in the digital realm.
- space_fountain 3y ago
  If you have a friend who's willing to report on you for a price and the government pays the price the 4th amendment wouldn't have been violated. Why is is different because it's digital? The government isn't spying on you, it's just paying for information collected legally
  - weard_beard 3y ago
    The government paying a contractor to circumvent the constitution is still the government violating the constitution.
  - mc32 3y ago
    If you call the gov and you confess to something that’s on you. Your friend also cannot just bust into your house and search through your things. Now the government because it has enormous powers behind it and people willing to do the wrong thing on its behalf is specifically limited in what it’s allowed to do.
    - somenits 3y ago
      It depends. If someone breaks into your house with government encouragement, that’s a Fourth Amendment violation. If he breaks into your house because he’s a burglar, and then happens upon something he knows the government would want, and then sells that information to the government, it’s not a Fourth Amendment violation.
      - krapp 3y ago
        The question is, if you hold a garage sale and someone buys your stuff and the governments then buys that stuff from whomever you sold it to, is it a Fourth Amendment violation? Because that's what's really happening here. Once you sell your data to Facebook, Twitter, etc, it's no longer "in your house." If you granted third parties license to collect and sell your data under terms of service, then that data no longer belongs to you, and you agreed to that.. To me the bigger problem isn't the government buying data on the open market, it's that data is a market to begin with.