4 ms·

Maybe this is a naive question, but if the information is for sale, why would the government need a warrant?

• leoh 3y ago
  The fact that this data is available at all is such a fail.
  • add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
    Right, but raising a panic by saying the government has this data or China gets this data is a distraction from the real issue, that such a vast marketplace exists openly for anyone to shop.
    • leoh 3y ago
      Can't say I disagree.
• paulryanrogers 3y ago
  If the government is doing it as an end run around the fourth amendment then that should be illegal.
  • halJordan 3y ago
    But they are though? I agree that intrinsic privacy rights should prevent this. But the fact is this data is freely available, it's public information, the individual has released it appropriately. The problem isn't the govt using public data, the problem is that the data is public. You simply cannot have a privacy concern when you've agreed for it to not be private in the first place.
    • h-c-c 3y ago
      It's not freely available, it's for sale. And just because private data is for sale does make it public.
      • pixl97 3y ago
        It's private property that happens to be data. The fact it's allowed to be collected and sold to anyone much less the government.
        • nobodyandproud 3y ago
          Which means that private consent in contract for data collection here is meaningless. Similar to how one cannot sign away one’s constitutional rights in a contract.
  • nerdile 3y ago
    Why would it be legal for a person or company to buy this publicly offered information but illegal for the government?
    • paulryanrogers 3y ago
      The government is bound by the fourth amendment. Regardless, if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. (For example because it's increasingly impractical to live without a smart phone and cell tower connections, or avoid iTags.)
      • lmm 3y ago
        > The government is bound by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is a restriction on the government's ability to search or seize - things that a regular private entity is not permitted to do at all, that represent an enormously abusable power. I don't see how buying public information fits into that. > if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. Perhaps. But looking to ban the government from buying that information on the open market is putting the cart before the horse. If the problem is our private information being sold, let's look for a fix for that that would protect us from large companies or wealthy individuals with a grudge, rather than focusing narrowly on the government.
      • edgyquant 3y ago
        It is not a violation of the fourth amendment to buy information you’ve granted to parties to sell. Hacking your router and gathering the information that way would be illegal, this is just buying data like a thousand other businesses do.
      • rpdillon 3y ago
        The third-party doctrine is a loophole in the fourth amendment. > The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    That doesn’t make any sense at all.
• legitster 3y ago
  The fact that it is with or without warrants is almost completely irrelevant in the article itself. The headline is misleading.
• happytiger 3y ago
  Fourth Amendment. Here’s the answer in depth: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-the-government-buys-sensitive-personal-data https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-the-government-buy...
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    The fourth amendment is not about buying things everyone else is able to buy
    • happytiger 3y ago
      You should consider reading the article.
      • MarkMarine 3y ago
        Really truly hate agreeing with brookings, but they are right here. I find it interesting where the line between freedom and acceptable government intervention seems to be for many people. There must be an aspect of “what do I have to worry about” that doesn’t kick in until people explicitly see what they have to worry about looming.
        • swells34 3y ago
          It's the classic "I have nothing to hide" argument. Which immediately breaks down when you realize that, with enough information about someone, you can implicate them in something illegal. A case can be built against them, a narrative spun, and an innocent person spending their lives locked up. This happens constantly in the US judicial system, though I believe it is often unintentional, just human bias doing it's thing.
      • Zanni 3y ago
        I've read the article, and it addresses the point vaguely at best: "The standard argument in favor of unfettered government purchases of private data is that such data is commercially available, and so anyone should be able to purchase it, including government officers." Agreed. "... while government officials can generally purchase items available to the public without constitutional restriction, sensitive private data about cell phone users isn’t actually available to the public." What? I may be misunderstanding, but this looks like a deliberate attempt to conflate two concerns: publicly available data for sale and sensitive private data. I don't see any argument here against the government buying publicly available data.