6 ms·

I don’t really understand why it’s so much more controversial that agencies are buying commercially available data than that the data is being collected and mad

by jrmg 3y ago

I don’t really understand why it’s so much more controversial that agencies are buying commercially available data than that the data is being collected and made available to anyone that will pay in the first place.

treyd 3y ago
Because Americans are so terrified of government that they can be completely okay with something terrible as long as it's private corporations doing it (and so, theoretically, you have the ability to not be a customer of that corporation) and not the government. Even if in practice your data is still being collected by that corporation indirectly or all of their competitors are also collecting and selling your data.
- RobRivera 3y ago
  Oh am I?
- anon291 3y ago
  Private corporations in America regularly go bankrupt, lose tons of money, go out of business, go defunct, etc. The government does not. It's just not the same thing at all. Private corporations can be dissolved by government action. They can be handled much easier than the government.
  - treyd 3y ago
    When was the last time a large and entrenched corporation did something terrible to the American public and was forcibly dissolved by the government?
    - anon291 3y ago
      Not forcibly dissolved, but as we've seen with COVID and the recent 'woke' stuff, the public collectively punishes corporations they don't like. Even facebook is seeing a mass exodus from the platform after the election fiasco in 2016 and the ensuing controversy (which was around data privacy).
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >Because Americans are so terrified of government that they can be completely okay with something terrible as long as it's private corporations doing it That's not it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to set up a government with constraints and a culture of respect for the citizenry. It isn't about trust or no trust in 'government', because government is made up of individuals, and individuals have all kinds of motivations. I generally trust the government, but I am aware that any specific policy or decision can be a corrupt action for the benefit of some individual within the beurocracy.
bell-cot 3y ago
My guess is that domestic spooks buying the data is a threat to many people's "Just Pretend"-privacy armor. If Larry's Lawn Care, Esther's Escort Service, and 47 assorted mafias and criminal gangs buy my data...well, other than more spam, what are they actually gonna do with it? (Or so I can tell myself.) Vs. the FBI & local cops & such might dig through my data and [danger music] find something, or start doing creepy targeting of me, and they are the law, with power to do whatever they want...
- anonym29 3y ago
  Your "anonymized" cell phone GPS data can be used pretty easily to determine when you're not home for purposes of burglary. Your household size and firearm preferences data can tell a rapist how easy of a target you will be. Your genetic information can be used by insurance companies to secretly deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, even though this is illegal. Your genetic information could also cause you to be targeted by racists. Your sexual preferences could be used against you as blackmail if the government or cultural moment shifts away from tolerance and they become unacceptable. Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping. I know a lot of these sound crazy, but consider this: the fact that they sound so crazy would itself make you sound less believable to others if anyone ever did victimize you any of these ways, furthering their odds of being able to perform that successfully without repercussions.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    My sense is that you did not read the comment I was replying to, and overlooked both disclaimers in my reply: >> "Just Pretend"-privacy >> Or so I can tell myself. I am perfectly aware of every fact you noted. Repeating those facts on HN educates no one, and does nothing whatever to address the question in the prior comment.
  - gur48 3y ago
    This is beyond paranoid. It's para-paranoid. > Your "anonymized" cell phone GPS data can be used pretty easily to determine when you're not home for purposes of burglary. Please - PLEASE - find me ONE example of a home burglary occuring under these circumstances. > Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping. This is just beyond nuts. Stop watching so much television, it's not good for your mental health.
bayindirh 3y ago
It's not the action of buying the data, but the action of buying data on people you're not supposed to spy on, plus the technical capabilities of the NSA which raises the question of what the heck are you doing all this data plus the data you collect covertly with methods you don't tell, and what are the consequences of this on personal, national and community level?.
oatmeal1 3y ago
It should be obvious. The government can use information to prosecute people. Corporations can't. The government is much less accountable than corporations for malicious behavior due to sovereign and qualified immunity.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  NSA is not law enforcement, neither is the Census Bureau and they do not require a warrant either even though they collect far more data.
  - anon291 3y ago
    It is the government though and the law makes no distinction.
    - austin-cheney 3y ago
      It does. If a person’s rights are not violated there is no cause to limit government access, at least according to the fourth amendment.
      - alan-hn 3y ago
        Rights are being violated simply by the government accessing the information
      - guhidalg 3y ago
        Let me rephrase what you said in a way that makes it clearer: The government can do anything that is legal. I people believe purchasing data is a violation of the 4th amendment and it may not yet be illegal but it should be.
        anon291 3y ago
        > The government can do anything that is legal. That's true, but the federal government has a limited number of things it can do, as specified in our memorandum of understanding between the people of the united states and the federal government. That ought to be the framing under which all federal actions are seen. To put it another way, for individuals, unless something is illegal, you are entitled to do it. Whereas for the federal government, everything is illegal except that which was made legal.
macspoofing 3y ago
The government is supposed to play by different (more constrained) rules because it has a monopoly on force. I don't know what the legality of the NSA buying private data is, but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens.
- ilovetux 3y ago
  > it has a monopoly on force I don't think this is true. These guys are still around[0] even after garnering their bad reputation. [0] https://pinkerton.com/ https://pinkerton.com/
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence
  - banannaise 3y ago
    They can only operate as such because the state turns a blind eye. It is no coincidence that they tend to be hired by parties that have tremendous political influence, act much like private police, and have an extremely cozy relationship with the actual police.
- gruez 3y ago
  > The government is supposed to play by different (more constrained) rules because it has a monopoly on force. How is this relevant when the government is purchasing the data on the open market? >but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens. No, the spirit of the law is that the government can't use its monopoly on violence to gather evidence.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    We can set whatever rules we want for the government. Whether the information is available on the open market doesn’t matter. Government isn’t a force of nature. We could say the government is only allowed to buy data on a Friday the 13th during a full moon if we want.
fusslo 3y ago
I'll take a crack at a couple possibilities well, first, companies having this information is inherently not ok to the average person Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules. Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison).
- dgfitz 3y ago
  > well, first, companies having this information is inherently not ok to the average person I sincerely disagree. The average person doesn't care. They should, but they absolutely do not. Don't fall into the hn-bubble trap. > Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with If I had a nickel for everything the government did with my money that I disagree with I could quit my day job. > Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules. Generally, a population just wants to be "fat and happy" and secure. You're falling into the HN bubble trap again. > Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison). Sure. Otherwise what's the point?
- abeppu 3y ago
  The last step of the journey we're on is when individuals taking steps to limit the data collected about them by corporations are charged with obstruction of justice because the government cannot buy enough data about them.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
They don't want the govt to be able to do that but they also don't want to cut off the money faucet for data brokers. Personally, I think that if data brokers have it then it is essentially public information. What makes the public information from data brokers different from other public information like your address?
- conductr 3y ago
  Idk, I get your point but... Imagine a world where I could visit a site or ask a gpt to use the only thing I know about you, your apparently obfuscated HN username, and then I could track you in real time. Because it knew your username’s IP address, which then knew your phone, which then gave me a feed of your gps coordinates, which then gave me live video/audio of any networked camera/smart home device you were in view of. There would be very little shadow over you that people couldn’t watch, or record for future scrutiny. Your employer, business associates, religious groups, neighbors, etc would know everything about you. This is just the tip of the iceberg, your search history and porn viewing preferences and everything else you consider private would then be connected to the username you hide behind. That would be a bit creepy but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if NSA had the data to build this capability. Money seems like a decent but exploitable way to keep all this data from being stitched together privately
mightybyte 3y ago
In short, the government is special because of its broad sweeping power to make laws that impact everyone. For example, consider the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". This applies to the government but not, say, to a third grade classroom rule against using curse words. It's perfectly reasonable for a private group to ban certain kinds of speech because if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. But much more care must be taken when you're operating in the sphere of laws and government actions. Another way to put it...the government is the only entity in society with a monopoly on the use of force. With great power there should also be a great degree of responsibility.
JohnFen 3y ago
Because the government is doing this specifically to evade controls that are supposed to help keep us safe from governmental abuse. But I do agree with your premise: it's a travesty that this data is collected and made commercially available without informed consent in the first place.
EasyMark 3y ago
Private corporations can't imprison you (well not without government blessing) and take away your basic freedoms, the government can. Also, the Bill of Rights & Constitution is by and large meant to protect you from the excesses of government and not private citizens, regular laws are meant for that, mostly at the state and local level. That's always been the legal distinction in the USA

by jrmg 3y ago

treyd 3y ago

Because Americans are so terrified of government that they can be completely okay with something terrible as long as it's private corporations doing it (and so, theoretically, you have the ability to not be a customer of that corporation) and not the government. Even if in practice your data is still being collected by that corporation indirectly or all of their competitors are also collecting and selling your data.

RobRivera 3y ago
Oh am I?
anon291 3y ago
Private corporations in America regularly go bankrupt, lose tons of money, go out of business, go defunct, etc. The government does not. It's just not the same thing at all. Private corporations can be dissolved by government action. They can be handled much easier than the government.
- treyd 3y ago
  When was the last time a large and entrenched corporation did something terrible to the American public and was forcibly dissolved by the government?
  - anon291 3y ago
    Not forcibly dissolved, but as we've seen with COVID and the recent 'woke' stuff, the public collectively punishes corporations they don't like. Even facebook is seeing a mass exodus from the platform after the election fiasco in 2016 and the ensuing controversy (which was around data privacy).
macspoofing 3y ago
>Because Americans are so terrified of government that they can be completely okay with something terrible as long as it's private corporations doing it That's not it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to set up a government with constraints and a culture of respect for the citizenry. It isn't about trust or no trust in 'government', because government is made up of individuals, and individuals have all kinds of motivations. I generally trust the government, but I am aware that any specific policy or decision can be a corrupt action for the benefit of some individual within the beurocracy.

bell-cot 3y ago

My guess is that domestic spooks buying the data is a threat to many people's "Just Pretend"-privacy armor. If Larry's Lawn Care, Esther's Escort Service, and 47 assorted mafias and criminal gangs buy my data...well, other than more spam, what are they actually gonna do with it? (Or so I can tell myself.) Vs. the FBI & local cops & such might dig through my data and [danger music] find something, or start doing creepy targeting of me, and they are the law, with power to do whatever they want...

anonym29 3y ago
Your "anonymized" cell phone GPS data can be used pretty easily to determine when you're not home for purposes of burglary. Your household size and firearm preferences data can tell a rapist how easy of a target you will be. Your genetic information can be used by insurance companies to secretly deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, even though this is illegal. Your genetic information could also cause you to be targeted by racists. Your sexual preferences could be used against you as blackmail if the government or cultural moment shifts away from tolerance and they become unacceptable. Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping. I know a lot of these sound crazy, but consider this: the fact that they sound so crazy would itself make you sound less believable to others if anyone ever did victimize you any of these ways, furthering their odds of being able to perform that successfully without repercussions.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  My sense is that you did not read the comment I was replying to, and overlooked both disclaimers in my reply: >> "Just Pretend"-privacy >> Or so I can tell myself. I am perfectly aware of every fact you noted. Repeating those facts on HN educates no one, and does nothing whatever to address the question in the prior comment.
- gur48 3y ago
  This is beyond paranoid. It's para-paranoid. > Your "anonymized" cell phone GPS data can be used pretty easily to determine when you're not home for purposes of burglary. Please - PLEASE - find me ONE example of a home burglary occuring under these circumstances. > Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping. This is just beyond nuts. Stop watching so much television, it's not good for your mental health.

bayindirh 3y ago

It's not the action of buying the data, but the action of buying data on people you're not supposed to spy on, plus the technical capabilities of the NSA which raises the question of what the heck are you doing all this data plus the data you collect covertly with methods you don't tell, and what are the consequences of this on personal, national and community level?.

oatmeal1 3y ago

It should be obvious. The government can use information to prosecute people. Corporations can't. The government is much less accountable than corporations for malicious behavior due to sovereign and qualified immunity.

austin-cheney 3y ago
NSA is not law enforcement, neither is the Census Bureau and they do not require a warrant either even though they collect far more data.
- anon291 3y ago
  It is the government though and the law makes no distinction.
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    It does. If a person’s rights are not violated there is no cause to limit government access, at least according to the fourth amendment.
    - alan-hn 3y ago
      Rights are being violated simply by the government accessing the information
    - guhidalg 3y ago
      Let me rephrase what you said in a way that makes it clearer: The government can do anything that is legal. I people believe purchasing data is a violation of the 4th amendment and it may not yet be illegal but it should be.
      - anon291 3y ago
        > The government can do anything that is legal. That's true, but the federal government has a limited number of things it can do, as specified in our memorandum of understanding between the people of the united states and the federal government. That ought to be the framing under which all federal actions are seen. To put it another way, for individuals, unless something is illegal, you are entitled to do it. Whereas for the federal government, everything is illegal except that which was made legal.

macspoofing 3y ago

The government is supposed to play by different (more constrained) rules because it has a monopoly on force. I don't know what the legality of the NSA buying private data is, but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens.

ilovetux 3y ago
> it has a monopoly on force I don't think this is true. These guys are still around[0] even after garnering their bad reputation. [0] https://pinkerton.com/ https://pinkerton.com/
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence
- banannaise 3y ago
  They can only operate as such because the state turns a blind eye. It is no coincidence that they tend to be hired by parties that have tremendous political influence, act much like private police, and have an extremely cozy relationship with the actual police.
gruez 3y ago
> The government is supposed to play by different (more constrained) rules because it has a monopoly on force. How is this relevant when the government is purchasing the data on the open market? >but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens. No, the spirit of the law is that the government can't use its monopoly on violence to gather evidence.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  We can set whatever rules we want for the government. Whether the information is available on the open market doesn’t matter. Government isn’t a force of nature. We could say the government is only allowed to buy data on a Friday the 13th during a full moon if we want.

fusslo 3y ago

I'll take a crack at a couple possibilities well, first, companies having this information is inherently not ok to the average person Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules. Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison).

dgfitz 3y ago
> well, first, companies having this information is inherently not ok to the average person I sincerely disagree. The average person doesn't care. They should, but they absolutely do not. Don't fall into the hn-bubble trap. > Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with If I had a nickel for everything the government did with my money that I disagree with I could quit my day job. > Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules. Generally, a population just wants to be "fat and happy" and secure. You're falling into the HN bubble trap again. > Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison). Sure. Otherwise what's the point?
abeppu 3y ago
The last step of the journey we're on is when individuals taking steps to limit the data collected about them by corporations are charged with obstruction of justice because the government cannot buy enough data about them.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

They don't want the govt to be able to do that but they also don't want to cut off the money faucet for data brokers. Personally, I think that if data brokers have it then it is essentially public information. What makes the public information from data brokers different from other public information like your address?

conductr 3y ago
Idk, I get your point but... Imagine a world where I could visit a site or ask a gpt to use the only thing I know about you, your apparently obfuscated HN username, and then I could track you in real time. Because it knew your username’s IP address, which then knew your phone, which then gave me a feed of your gps coordinates, which then gave me live video/audio of any networked camera/smart home device you were in view of. There would be very little shadow over you that people couldn’t watch, or record for future scrutiny. Your employer, business associates, religious groups, neighbors, etc would know everything about you. This is just the tip of the iceberg, your search history and porn viewing preferences and everything else you consider private would then be connected to the username you hide behind. That would be a bit creepy but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if NSA had the data to build this capability. Money seems like a decent but exploitable way to keep all this data from being stitched together privately

mightybyte 3y ago

In short, the government is special because of its broad sweeping power to make laws that impact everyone. For example, consider the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". This applies to the government but not, say, to a third grade classroom rule against using curse words. It's perfectly reasonable for a private group to ban certain kinds of speech because if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. But much more care must be taken when you're operating in the sphere of laws and government actions. Another way to put it...the government is the only entity in society with a monopoly on the use of force. With great power there should also be a great degree of responsibility.

JohnFen 3y ago

Because the government is doing this specifically to evade controls that are supposed to help keep us safe from governmental abuse. But I do agree with your premise: it's a travesty that this data is collected and made commercially available without informed consent in the first place.

EasyMark 3y ago

Private corporations can't imprison you (well not without government blessing) and take away your basic freedoms, the government can. Also, the Bill of Rights & Constitution is by and large meant to protect you from the excesses of government and not private citizens, regular laws are meant for that, mostly at the state and local level. That's always been the legal distinction in the USA