13 ms·

How is this legal? Most of the content people post is random and slightly political. It should be against the law to do this because the various government agen

How is this legal? Most of the content people post is random and slightly political. It should be against the law to do this because the various government agencies will always be tied to one party or another.

raincom 3y ago
Third-party doctrine, a loophole for the fourth amendment.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> content people post is random and slightly political It would be illegal for them to act on it. But I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts. (To be clear, I think this should be illegal.) > various government agencies will always be tied to one party or another No, they shouldn’t, haven’t generally been and are not over long time horizons.
- aledalgrande 3y ago
  > I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts. I don't know if this law only affects business or the gov too, but the California Privacy Act says: > The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared; and also > The right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information collected about them but I'm pretty sure the gov will excuse themselves from laws made for businesses. https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the California Privacy Act says California laws don’t bind the feds.
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  One reason that comes up every so often is that after someone goes extra crazy and kills a bunch of people his ( usually his for better or worse ) net presence is carefully scrutinized for any aberration that could have indicated he could and would have done it and then it is used to ask 'why didn't you some gov official do something?' And politicians like to stay in office. Oddly, as bad as this practice is, it is likely one of the lower threats to privacy in US.
- hedora 3y ago
  Even if it is illegal for them to use it, the courts have ruled that law enforcement can use illegal tools during investigations, and then lie about it in court without compromising their case. The legal term for this is “parallel construction”. Even if the courts threw out cases that were built this way, it is hard to detect, and most cases don’t go to court. Even if prosecutors behaved ethically, and didn’t pursue such cases, there are well-documented problems with organized crime infiltrating police departments, and then being difficult to bring to justice (e.g. LA’s deputy gangs have had control of a chunk of the LAPD for over 50 years). The best solution is to ban the collection of the data in the first place.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > courts have ruled that law enforcement can use illegal tools during investigations, and then lie about it in court No, they haven’t. Parallel construction is lying to the court about how you got your evidence. It’s never been court sanctioned to my knowledge.
    - hedora 3y ago
      From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.[2]
- tessierashpool 3y ago
  > I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts in theory, it is, due to the blanket search provisions of the 4th Amendment. if you read the Federalist papers, it is absolutely what the 4th Amendment was created to prevent (although a far more automated approach than it ever envisioned). in practice, the courts have weakened the 4th Amendment quite a bit, so it might be legal, technically.
Gibbon1 3y ago
It problematic because it's inviting customs and immigration agents to act on their own personal religious and political biases.
emodendroket 3y ago
It may not be. What are you going to do about it?

raincom 3y ago

Third-party doctrine, a loophole for the fourth amendment.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> content people post is random and slightly political It would be illegal for them to act on it. But I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts. (To be clear, I think this should be illegal.) > various government agencies will always be tied to one party or another No, they shouldn’t, haven’t generally been and are not over long time horizons.

aledalgrande 3y ago
> I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts. I don't know if this law only affects business or the gov too, but the California Privacy Act says: > The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared; and also > The right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information collected about them but I'm pretty sure the gov will excuse themselves from laws made for businesses. https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the California Privacy Act says California laws don’t bind the feds.
hfuyf65 3y ago
One reason that comes up every so often is that after someone goes extra crazy and kills a bunch of people his ( usually his for better or worse ) net presence is carefully scrutinized for any aberration that could have indicated he could and would have done it and then it is used to ask 'why didn't you some gov official do something?' And politicians like to stay in office. Oddly, as bad as this practice is, it is likely one of the lower threats to privacy in US.
hedora 3y ago
Even if it is illegal for them to use it, the courts have ruled that law enforcement can use illegal tools during investigations, and then lie about it in court without compromising their case. The legal term for this is “parallel construction”. Even if the courts threw out cases that were built this way, it is hard to detect, and most cases don’t go to court. Even if prosecutors behaved ethically, and didn’t pursue such cases, there are well-documented problems with organized crime infiltrating police departments, and then being difficult to bring to justice (e.g. LA’s deputy gangs have had control of a chunk of the LAPD for over 50 years). The best solution is to ban the collection of the data in the first place.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > courts have ruled that law enforcement can use illegal tools during investigations, and then lie about it in court No, they haven’t. Parallel construction is lying to the court about how you got your evidence. It’s never been court sanctioned to my knowledge.
  - hedora 3y ago
    From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.[2]
tessierashpool 3y ago
> I don’t think it’s illegal to correlate, particularly for public posts in theory, it is, due to the blanket search provisions of the 4th Amendment. if you read the Federalist papers, it is absolutely what the 4th Amendment was created to prevent (although a far more automated approach than it ever envisioned). in practice, the courts have weakened the 4th Amendment quite a bit, so it might be legal, technically.

Gibbon1 3y ago

It problematic because it's inviting customs and immigration agents to act on their own personal religious and political biases.

emodendroket 3y ago

It may not be. What are you going to do about it?