15 ms·

It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spir

by lumb63 3y ago

It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spirit, of the fourth amendment. I’d like to see an amendment to the Constitution to update the fourth amendment for the modern era, where a huge amount of information can be gathered about people without “searches and seizures”. The general issue of data collection is obviously one of the largest of our time, but I think most people would agree our own government should not be using our money (or debt) to legally circumvent our rights.

cyanydeez 3y ago
seems to me, the upstream problem is data brokers.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  You're not wrong, but the implied solution of no data brokers is gonna be a bad thing. The information is out there, it's stupid easy to correlate and collate it. It's even easier to use that to do something profitable. Getting rid of data brokers, making them not exist just makes a gray market for the information, one that is just as lucrative and is going to be untaxed and unregulated. 641a was the moment privacy died. We're not getting it back. We need to come up with a better method/idea...
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    We need data collection laws similar to HIPAA breaches that render data collection akin to storing nuclear waste. I'd like to see this apply to aggregate data mining too, so we can get rid of things like the Topics API.
    - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
      HIPAA allows your medical information to be widely shared without your consent. It just requires the many holders of the data to implement some security controls. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/interoperability/how-hipaa-supports-data-sharing https://www.healthit.gov/topic/interoperability/how-hipaa-su...
- toolz 3y ago
  There are multiple problems here, but only one of those problems works for the US people. It's clear to me which problem should be most easily addressed with the highest impact for the effort. We're talking about the difference in trying to influence arbitrary third parties behaviors and the difference in trying to influence the behavior of your own employees.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    businesses are granted existence for the American people. sorry guy, saying businesses can just take your data and do the same thing as the government is delusional. neither should be allowed.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  But upstream of that is people volunteering their personal information.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I don't think this is true for most cases. I have not volunteered or given consent for the collection of most of the data about me on these markets.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    The vast majority of people have not given informed nor enthusiastic consent to these practices.
    - bpt3 3y ago
      That's not the standard for engaging in a commercial transaction, and never will be.
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
        That's not acceptable, nor should we accept it. Consent comes first.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spirit, of the fourth amendment. Tragically the 4th amendment is kinda narrow. I would definitely appreciate some additions which enshrine a more specific right to privacy. Protecting against "unlawful" searches (AKA you have to take the case to court afterwards) is far to close to meaningless. Feels like the 4th amendment is about 10% as powerful as it should be.
ajross 3y ago
> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation The fourth amendment is a prohibition on UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. What possible definition of "reasonable" would exclude "legally purchased on the open market"? What other perfectly reasonable techniques would you deny to law enforcement? Should they not be able to look at someone's LinkedIn? Look up their address in a phone book? No, the constitution isn't going to protect you from the government doing what everyone else can. If we want this stuff not to be available for sale, we should regulate it.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > No, the constitution isn't going to protect you from the government doing what everyone else can. That's actually it's literal intended purpose as far as I can tell. For example, my employer can make certain demands of my speech or otherwise punish me for my expressed opinions, while such behavior is explicitly forbidden from the government by the constitution.
  - ajross 3y ago
    That's true of the text of the first amendment, because that part is clear and unqualified ("congress shall make no law") as clearly the framers felt it was important not to be misunderstood. Why do you think the word "unreasonable" is even in the text of the fourth then, if not to clarify that the government IS allowed[1] to do normal/legal/reasonable/whatever research? I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended that this stuff is being gathered about you. I'm saying the constitution isn't going to protect you and you need to vote for candidates (Wyden's an excellent one!) who will pass laws to do that. [1] Because of course it is. Again, police work requires information gathering!
- c0pium 3y ago
  Who are you more concerned about being able to query your LexisNexis report, the NSA or the domestic terrorists? Unfortunately many (most?) people on here are in the advertising/data merchant business. You will never convince someone to understand a thing if their livelihood depends on them not understanding it.
tantalor 3y ago
They also use this to solve cold cases by scanning genetic databases for near matches. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/science/gedmatch-genealogy-cold-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/science/gedmatch-genealog...
- EasyMark 3y ago
  another thing that should also be illegal. You shouldn't be able to use a 3rd party (company) to break the law (4th amendment)
  - the_doctah 3y ago
    Problem is if they make it illegal now you would pretty much have to release at least 2 horrible prolific serial killers
    - psychlops 3y ago
      Trample on the rights of hundreds of millions or release a few serial killers? I'd take the greater good option.
    - ilovetux 3y ago
      It seems to be coming out that DNA evidence is not as reliable/accurate as we have been led to believe, so yes if the evidence was illegally obtained and of questionable veracity then we should release anyone who was convicted as a result. If blame for the whole situation is required, blame the overzealous prosecutors who raced ahead with flimsy, pseudo-scientific evidence.
      - tzs 3y ago
        I don't think that they used the DNA from the databases to convict the people in these cases. I think it was more like this: • They've got a serious crime, like a serial killer, but no real suspects. They do have some DNA that is almost certainly from the criminal but it does not match any DNA they have on file. • Years later they compare that DNA to DNA in some large DNA database that is not focused on criminals. • There are no matches that indicate that the criminal's DNA is in that database, but there are several matches that indicate people who are relatives of the criminal. • They can then look at assorted public records to find people who are related in the right way to some of those relatives. • Among those people, some previous person who either never was a suspect originally or a very weak suspect comes up. They then take a thorough look at any records can find about that person's activities at the times of the crime and find that they were actually connected to most of the victims and in the right places at the right times to be the criminal. • That gives them enough evidence to compel a DNA sample from that person, or they start watching the person and get a DNA sample from something like a discarded napkin or cup that the person unwisely discarded in a public trashcan. That sample matches the samples from the crime scene. • It is that latter sample, and the records of the person's activities and relationships with the victims, that form the bases of the conviction.
mechhacker 3y ago
That and the third amendment for stationing a "soldier" (tracking and data collection) in our home (phone). And it needs to be extended to monopoly involuntary "private" entities with known federal sweetheart deals.
- gur48 3y ago
  The same phone you voluntarily purchased, brought into your home and agreed to the terms of service on?
  - mechhacker 3y ago
    Good luck functioning in modern life without phones like this. There need to be limits, and it is being abused. And nobody reads the ToS.
    - gur48 3y ago
      Many people live well and successfully, myself included, without being addicted to technology like the phones described. It's called discipline and self-control (and reading comprehension for the ToS).
JohnFen 3y ago
> where a huge amount of information can be gathered about people without “searches and seizures” Although in my opinion, the vast majority of this data collection and use absolutely counts as "searches and seizures" -- just by private corporations rather than the government. Which, in my view, is worse than if it were just the government.
- psychlops 3y ago
  > Which, in my view, is worse than if it were just the government. Consider that no matter how evil the corporation, they can't seize your property or freedom. Be careful who you empower.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Yes, they can, and they have. What do you think Apple is, if not a government in corporate clothing?
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      Apple cannot jail you, fine you, or legally enjoin your activities.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        US history is full of examples of private corporations doing exactly this.
        psychlops 3y ago
        Are you saying that this is still done today or just bringing up an interesting historical fact?
      - kmeisthax 3y ago
        Their behavior against Gizmodo over an iPhone 4 prototype got really close to jailing tech bloggers. Their technical control over the signing keys that Apple devices trust also gives them the ability to enjoin shittons of otherwise legal activity (e.g. emulators). Apple also pays shittons to have Customs & Border Patrol lock down the US border and ban iPhone parts imports that aren't authorized by Apple. Does that count as a fine? I'm pretty sure that's already two out of three.
tootie 3y ago
I doubt it. The data collected by brokers is going to all be indemnified by whoever collected the data. If they have all have posted privacy policies that include data collection and dissemination then it's fair game. I'm not sure the policies would even need to be airtight so long as the NSA and data brokers acted in good faith that they believed the policies were sound.
caseysoftware 3y ago
This goes back to Third Party Doctrine. It's the premise that once you give up data to a third party, you no longer have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" so therefore it's not a search. There is similar case law backing up searching your garbage can. While it's up against your house (aka still under your control), you have rights to it.. once you put it on the street for the garbage truck to collect, you've surrendered those rights. I'm NOT saying this is good or what I like - specifically, I hate it - but it's how it currently works under US case law. Therefore, to change things, we need Congress to write new laws and/or new Amendments. Our opinions of "how it should be done" are irrelevant unless backed by the law.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  Yes but I think the courts would instantly shoot down having the NSA collect everyone’s garbage and sift through it for anything incriminating
  - monocasa 3y ago
    There's no expectation of privacy for garbage, and no fourth amendment protections for it. That's why dumpster diving remains legal as long as you don't break since other law like trespass in the process.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  The funny thing is, when it comes to freedom of speech, the courts made the opposite decision with the State Actors doctrine. If the government wants to censor you, they can't reach through a private institution to do it. But the Third Party Doctrine says they can reach through a private institution to search and seize your property. This is an arbitrary distinction chosen purely by judicial fiat. There was no democratic movement to strengthen 1A and weaken 4A/5A in this manner. Ergo, we shouldn't necessarily have to get Congress involved just to fix this weird inconsistency in caselaw. The courts have an understandable aversion to "legislating from the bench", but if you've already done so, I think it's fine to at least fix obvious mistakes.
  - 3y ago
gur48 3y ago
"Rights" - even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights - are trampled on daily. Try traveling with a concealed firearm across state lines. Or telling a K-9 police officer they can't search your car after the dog has alerted. Or use your free speech privilege to spread alleged vitriol. There's no such thing as "rights" - only what individuals can defend in the current place and time they're in.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  Or simply having the audacity to travel on an airplane. > There's no such thing as "rights" - only what individuals can defend in the current place and time they're in. I suppose that is the way it always has been. When the government was small people just didn't care what they were up to. The people became complacent and allowed a beast to grow. If the rights we are supposed to have keep getting trampled on revolution is inevitable. It may take a long hellish time to happen but that is one fork in the path we are on.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information > of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in > spirit, of the fourth amendment. On the one hand, I fully agree. On the other hand, I also agree with the intuitive argument that it's very strange to let private corporations surveil and gather, buy, and sell information about citizens to exploit for profit, but then say that the government can't buy that same information for law enforcement and national security. It feels wrong to say that it's fine for someone with only a profit motive to use private data in small, petty ways to extract more profit from someone that's already paid them, but that the duly elected representative government can't use it for big, important things. Or, if law enforcement and national security are too fraught, what about, say, public health policy? The obvious answer is that corporations shouldn't have access to it either, but that's a much harder sell, and so we're in this weird limbo.
- w4 3y ago
  > It feels wrong to say that it's fine for someone with only a profit motive to use private data in small, petty ways to extract more profit from someone that's already paid them, but that the duly elected representative government can't use it for big, important things. We make this distinction all the time in areas like speech and searches, for good reason. The government is the only entity with near-omnipotent power over you. Corporations may be powerful, but they are ultimately restrained by the government’s monopoly on force; the government has no such restraints because it has the monopoly on force. It’s therefore reasonable and prudent to have different, more stringent rules for the government. If someone working for a corporation doesn’t like you, they can’t kill or imprison you (legally). Not so for the government. With that being said, whether or not anyone at all should be allowed to collect or use this data is also a totally valid topic for discussion and disagreement.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    > If someone working for a corporation doesn’t like you, they can’t kill or imprison you (legally). Not so for the government. Someone working for the government can't legally kill or imprison you because they don't like you either.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 3y ago
> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spirit, of the fourth amendment. It is and always has been legal for other people to volunteer information about you to the police. Doesn't matter if they're operating a business or not. I can call the police right now and tell them that lumb63 posted a comment on HN at 2024-01-30T14:14:13. If I had more detailed information, I could tell them that too, and they could legally listen to me. I could tell them literally anything that I know about anyone. Why would that be illegal? This situation doesn't have anything to do with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment prevents the government from forcibly taking information.
- godelski 3y ago
  The parent understands all that, you do not need to repeat what they said themselves. Times change, so do effects and outcomes. Laws don't have to be fixed for eternity. It would be really dumb if they did. Fortunately a system was designed to update laws in accordance with a dynamic environment.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    No, I am disagreeing with what they said. The 4th amendment is not the issue. It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want. The problem here is a lack of regulation for the companies that collect this data. Forget the government, data brokers can sell to anyone they want -- a stalker, someone looking to do harm to you, etc. People are harassed, robbed, cheated, scammed, and physically harmed using this information on a regular basis.
    - godelski 3y ago
      I understand you are disagreeing. They understand that the 4th Amendment doesn't offer these protections but made a claim that it does "in spirit." > It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want. You're right, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is one of 2 things. 1) Government initiated: seeks out and requests information from others and in this case, offering payment. 2) Information holder initiated: who is specifically offering information in exchange for compensation. This is more akin to walking into your police station and saying "I have crimes to report, but I will only do so if you pay me first." Obviously this has perverse incentives and I think we can see how this can clearly be abused to circumvent any requirements for warrants or other such due process. I do agree that this situation is in violation of the __spirit__ of our legal system. Clearly a loophole is de facto not in spirit. Whether that is a 4th Amendment or not, idk, IANAL and neither is the OP and I assume neither are you(?). 4th Amendment seems pretty reasonable to point to considering it mentions warrants and this practice is being done explicitly to circumvent warrant requirements. But clearly we all understand what is trying to be communicated here, and that's the point. I wouldn't have made such a comment if you mentioned explicitly third party doctrine (as casey did an hour before you) or cited some law which added clarity to the situation. But yes, everyone knows you can just freely go tell the police about a crime you witnessed. I'm not sure who does not understand this. I would be extremely surprised if anyone actually believed it was illegal to report crimes to authorities and immediately question their mental capacity. But I guess we disagree at what constitutes basic and obvious knowledge.

by lumb63 3y ago

cyanydeez 3y ago

seems to me, the upstream problem is data brokers.

zer00eyz 3y ago
You're not wrong, but the implied solution of no data brokers is gonna be a bad thing. The information is out there, it's stupid easy to correlate and collate it. It's even easier to use that to do something profitable. Getting rid of data brokers, making them not exist just makes a gray market for the information, one that is just as lucrative and is going to be untaxed and unregulated. 641a was the moment privacy died. We're not getting it back. We need to come up with a better method/idea...
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  We need data collection laws similar to HIPAA breaches that render data collection akin to storing nuclear waste. I'd like to see this apply to aggregate data mining too, so we can get rid of things like the Topics API.
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    HIPAA allows your medical information to be widely shared without your consent. It just requires the many holders of the data to implement some security controls. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/interoperability/how-hipaa-supports-data-sharing https://www.healthit.gov/topic/interoperability/how-hipaa-su...
toolz 3y ago
There are multiple problems here, but only one of those problems works for the US people. It's clear to me which problem should be most easily addressed with the highest impact for the effort. We're talking about the difference in trying to influence arbitrary third parties behaviors and the difference in trying to influence the behavior of your own employees.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  businesses are granted existence for the American people. sorry guy, saying businesses can just take your data and do the same thing as the government is delusional. neither should be allowed.
nonethewiser 3y ago
But upstream of that is people volunteering their personal information.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't think this is true for most cases. I have not volunteered or given consent for the collection of most of the data about me on these markets.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  The vast majority of people have not given informed nor enthusiastic consent to these practices.
  - bpt3 3y ago
    That's not the standard for engaging in a commercial transaction, and never will be.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
      That's not acceptable, nor should we accept it. Consent comes first.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spirit, of the fourth amendment. Tragically the 4th amendment is kinda narrow. I would definitely appreciate some additions which enshrine a more specific right to privacy. Protecting against "unlawful" searches (AKA you have to take the case to court afterwards) is far to close to meaningless. Feels like the 4th amendment is about 10% as powerful as it should be.

ajross 3y ago

> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation The fourth amendment is a prohibition on UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. What possible definition of "reasonable" would exclude "legally purchased on the open market"? What other perfectly reasonable techniques would you deny to law enforcement? Should they not be able to look at someone's LinkedIn? Look up their address in a phone book? No, the constitution isn't going to protect you from the government doing what everyone else can. If we want this stuff not to be available for sale, we should regulate it.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> No, the constitution isn't going to protect you from the government doing what everyone else can. That's actually it's literal intended purpose as far as I can tell. For example, my employer can make certain demands of my speech or otherwise punish me for my expressed opinions, while such behavior is explicitly forbidden from the government by the constitution.
- ajross 3y ago
  That's true of the text of the first amendment, because that part is clear and unqualified ("congress shall make no law") as clearly the framers felt it was important not to be misunderstood. Why do you think the word "unreasonable" is even in the text of the fourth then, if not to clarify that the government IS allowed[1] to do normal/legal/reasonable/whatever research? I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended that this stuff is being gathered about you. I'm saying the constitution isn't going to protect you and you need to vote for candidates (Wyden's an excellent one!) who will pass laws to do that. [1] Because of course it is. Again, police work requires information gathering!
c0pium 3y ago
Who are you more concerned about being able to query your LexisNexis report, the NSA or the domestic terrorists? Unfortunately many (most?) people on here are in the advertising/data merchant business. You will never convince someone to understand a thing if their livelihood depends on them not understanding it.

tantalor 3y ago

They also use this to solve cold cases by scanning genetic databases for near matches. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/science/gedmatch-genealogy-cold-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/science/gedmatch-genealog...

EasyMark 3y ago
another thing that should also be illegal. You shouldn't be able to use a 3rd party (company) to break the law (4th amendment)
- the_doctah 3y ago
  Problem is if they make it illegal now you would pretty much have to release at least 2 horrible prolific serial killers
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Trample on the rights of hundreds of millions or release a few serial killers? I'd take the greater good option.
  - ilovetux 3y ago
    It seems to be coming out that DNA evidence is not as reliable/accurate as we have been led to believe, so yes if the evidence was illegally obtained and of questionable veracity then we should release anyone who was convicted as a result. If blame for the whole situation is required, blame the overzealous prosecutors who raced ahead with flimsy, pseudo-scientific evidence.
    - tzs 3y ago
      I don't think that they used the DNA from the databases to convict the people in these cases. I think it was more like this: • They've got a serious crime, like a serial killer, but no real suspects. They do have some DNA that is almost certainly from the criminal but it does not match any DNA they have on file. • Years later they compare that DNA to DNA in some large DNA database that is not focused on criminals. • There are no matches that indicate that the criminal's DNA is in that database, but there are several matches that indicate people who are relatives of the criminal. • They can then look at assorted public records to find people who are related in the right way to some of those relatives. • Among those people, some previous person who either never was a suspect originally or a very weak suspect comes up. They then take a thorough look at any records can find about that person's activities at the times of the crime and find that they were actually connected to most of the victims and in the right places at the right times to be the criminal. • That gives them enough evidence to compel a DNA sample from that person, or they start watching the person and get a DNA sample from something like a discarded napkin or cup that the person unwisely discarded in a public trashcan. That sample matches the samples from the crime scene. • It is that latter sample, and the records of the person's activities and relationships with the victims, that form the bases of the conviction.

mechhacker 3y ago

That and the third amendment for stationing a "soldier" (tracking and data collection) in our home (phone). And it needs to be extended to monopoly involuntary "private" entities with known federal sweetheart deals.

gur48 3y ago
The same phone you voluntarily purchased, brought into your home and agreed to the terms of service on?
- mechhacker 3y ago
  Good luck functioning in modern life without phones like this. There need to be limits, and it is being abused. And nobody reads the ToS.
  - gur48 3y ago
    Many people live well and successfully, myself included, without being addicted to technology like the phones described. It's called discipline and self-control (and reading comprehension for the ToS).

JohnFen 3y ago

> where a huge amount of information can be gathered about people without “searches and seizures” Although in my opinion, the vast majority of this data collection and use absolutely counts as "searches and seizures" -- just by private corporations rather than the government. Which, in my view, is worse than if it were just the government.

psychlops 3y ago
> Which, in my view, is worse than if it were just the government. Consider that no matter how evil the corporation, they can't seize your property or freedom. Be careful who you empower.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Yes, they can, and they have. What do you think Apple is, if not a government in corporate clothing?
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Apple cannot jail you, fine you, or legally enjoin your activities.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      US history is full of examples of private corporations doing exactly this.
      - psychlops 3y ago
        Are you saying that this is still done today or just bringing up an interesting historical fact?
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Their behavior against Gizmodo over an iPhone 4 prototype got really close to jailing tech bloggers. Their technical control over the signing keys that Apple devices trust also gives them the ability to enjoin shittons of otherwise legal activity (e.g. emulators). Apple also pays shittons to have Customs & Border Patrol lock down the US border and ban iPhone parts imports that aren't authorized by Apple. Does that count as a fine? I'm pretty sure that's already two out of three.

tootie 3y ago

I doubt it. The data collected by brokers is going to all be indemnified by whoever collected the data. If they have all have posted privacy policies that include data collection and dissemination then it's fair game. I'm not sure the policies would even need to be airtight so long as the NSA and data brokers acted in good faith that they believed the policies were sound.

caseysoftware 3y ago

This goes back to Third Party Doctrine. It's the premise that once you give up data to a third party, you no longer have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" so therefore it's not a search. There is similar case law backing up searching your garbage can. While it's up against your house (aka still under your control), you have rights to it.. once you put it on the street for the garbage truck to collect, you've surrendered those rights. I'm NOT saying this is good or what I like - specifically, I hate it - but it's how it currently works under US case law. Therefore, to change things, we need Congress to write new laws and/or new Amendments. Our opinions of "how it should be done" are irrelevant unless backed by the law.

Eji1700 3y ago
Yes but I think the courts would instantly shoot down having the NSA collect everyone’s garbage and sift through it for anything incriminating
- monocasa 3y ago
  There's no expectation of privacy for garbage, and no fourth amendment protections for it. That's why dumpster diving remains legal as long as you don't break since other law like trespass in the process.
kmeisthax 3y ago
The funny thing is, when it comes to freedom of speech, the courts made the opposite decision with the State Actors doctrine. If the government wants to censor you, they can't reach through a private institution to do it. But the Third Party Doctrine says they can reach through a private institution to search and seize your property. This is an arbitrary distinction chosen purely by judicial fiat. There was no democratic movement to strengthen 1A and weaken 4A/5A in this manner. Ergo, we shouldn't necessarily have to get Congress involved just to fix this weird inconsistency in caselaw. The courts have an understandable aversion to "legislating from the bench", but if you've already done so, I think it's fine to at least fix obvious mistakes.
- 3y ago

gur48 3y ago

"Rights" - even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights - are trampled on daily. Try traveling with a concealed firearm across state lines. Or telling a K-9 police officer they can't search your car after the dog has alerted. Or use your free speech privilege to spread alleged vitriol. There's no such thing as "rights" - only what individuals can defend in the current place and time they're in.

tastyfreeze 3y ago
Or simply having the audacity to travel on an airplane. > There's no such thing as "rights" - only what individuals can defend in the current place and time they're in. I suppose that is the way it always has been. When the government was small people just didn't care what they were up to. The people became complacent and allowed a beast to grow. If the rights we are supposed to have keep getting trampled on revolution is inevitable. It may take a long hellish time to happen but that is one fork in the path we are on.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information > of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in > spirit, of the fourth amendment. On the one hand, I fully agree. On the other hand, I also agree with the intuitive argument that it's very strange to let private corporations surveil and gather, buy, and sell information about citizens to exploit for profit, but then say that the government can't buy that same information for law enforcement and national security. It feels wrong to say that it's fine for someone with only a profit motive to use private data in small, petty ways to extract more profit from someone that's already paid them, but that the duly elected representative government can't use it for big, important things. Or, if law enforcement and national security are too fraught, what about, say, public health policy? The obvious answer is that corporations shouldn't have access to it either, but that's a much harder sell, and so we're in this weird limbo.

w4 3y ago
> It feels wrong to say that it's fine for someone with only a profit motive to use private data in small, petty ways to extract more profit from someone that's already paid them, but that the duly elected representative government can't use it for big, important things. We make this distinction all the time in areas like speech and searches, for good reason. The government is the only entity with near-omnipotent power over you. Corporations may be powerful, but they are ultimately restrained by the government’s monopoly on force; the government has no such restraints because it has the monopoly on force. It’s therefore reasonable and prudent to have different, more stringent rules for the government. If someone working for a corporation doesn’t like you, they can’t kill or imprison you (legally). Not so for the government. With that being said, whether or not anyone at all should be allowed to collect or use this data is also a totally valid topic for discussion and disagreement.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  > If someone working for a corporation doesn’t like you, they can’t kill or imprison you (legally). Not so for the government. Someone working for the government can't legally kill or imprison you because they don't like you either.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kube-system 3y ago

> It seems to me that the government accessing, even if by purchase, information of citizens without probable cause is a violation, if not in letter, then in spirit, of the fourth amendment. It is and always has been legal for other people to volunteer information about you to the police. Doesn't matter if they're operating a business or not. I can call the police right now and tell them that lumb63 posted a comment on HN at 2024-01-30T14:14:13. If I had more detailed information, I could tell them that too, and they could legally listen to me. I could tell them literally anything that I know about anyone. Why would that be illegal? This situation doesn't have anything to do with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment prevents the government from forcibly taking information.

godelski 3y ago
The parent understands all that, you do not need to repeat what they said themselves. Times change, so do effects and outcomes. Laws don't have to be fixed for eternity. It would be really dumb if they did. Fortunately a system was designed to update laws in accordance with a dynamic environment.
- kube-system 3y ago
  No, I am disagreeing with what they said. The 4th amendment is not the issue. It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want. The problem here is a lack of regulation for the companies that collect this data. Forget the government, data brokers can sell to anyone they want -- a stalker, someone looking to do harm to you, etc. People are harassed, robbed, cheated, scammed, and physically harmed using this information on a regular basis.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I understand you are disagreeing. They understand that the 4th Amendment doesn't offer these protections but made a claim that it does "in spirit." > It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want. You're right, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is one of 2 things. 1) Government initiated: seeks out and requests information from others and in this case, offering payment. 2) Information holder initiated: who is specifically offering information in exchange for compensation. This is more akin to walking into your police station and saying "I have crimes to report, but I will only do so if you pay me first." Obviously this has perverse incentives and I think we can see how this can clearly be abused to circumvent any requirements for warrants or other such due process. I do agree that this situation is in violation of the __spirit__ of our legal system. Clearly a loophole is de facto not in spirit. Whether that is a 4th Amendment or not, idk, IANAL and neither is the OP and I assume neither are you(?). 4th Amendment seems pretty reasonable to point to considering it mentions warrants and this practice is being done explicitly to circumvent warrant requirements. But clearly we all understand what is trying to be communicated here, and that's the point. I wouldn't have made such a comment if you mentioned explicitly third party doctrine (as casey did an hour before you) or cited some law which added clarity to the situation. But yes, everyone knows you can just freely go tell the police about a crime you witnessed. I'm not sure who does not understand this. I would be extremely surprised if anyone actually believed it was illegal to report crimes to authorities and immediately question their mental capacity. But I guess we disagree at what constitutes basic and obvious knowledge.