3 ms·

> 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 pr

by 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.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  I don't know about the rest of you, but when it comes to - Having enough money to retire into a dystopian hellhole that I spent my younger years creating - Making some hard decisions now so that I can have an average life in a functioning society later I'd prefer the latter. But conveniently, it's not HN that we need to convince to reign in advertising, it's the House and the Senate, and their voters are plenty suspicious of "big tech" whatever that is. And yeah, much more worried about the NSA than terrorists.
prpl 3y ago
Going a step further, they can just pay another middleman to do the analysis and write up reports to generate information to execute reasonable searches and seizures.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Actually, they can allow an entire free market of investigators to pop up and then pay them to do things. Like NHS does with doctors. In fact, we can remove the government from the equation altogether and have a free market
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    That might be a good move, because this government is feeling kind of stale, but I think we'd pretty quickly realize that free markets want some things that are worth preventing and a government would emerge to keep them from turning all roads into toll roads and other such excesses.
abofh 3y ago
While I get your point, the constitution is fundamentally _about_ hamstringing the government in ways you're fully allowed to privately contract away. It's about saying the government may pass any and all laws within these guidelines -- that's why you can shout fire at the top of a mountain and nobody cares, but in a privately owned theater it's not a free-speech issue. Or something like that - point is, if it wasn't doing anything wrong, why was it obscuring that fact through classification and NDA's until now - when as you say - it's public data that the government would (in your theory of constitutional law) be entitled to purchase?
troyvit 3y ago
Wyden's letter[1] is a lot more targeted than the Techdirt article. The letter says this: "The U.S. government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans’ privacy are not just unethical, but illegal," and refers specifically to an FTC order[2] that prohibits the government buying data from a specific shady broker (X-Mode Social). He summarizes the letter on his own site without the editorializing that honestly I love so much about Techdirt.[3] On a side-note, according to Wyden, 'Through this case, the FTC announced that Americans must be told and agree to their data being sold to “government contractors for national security purposes,” for the practice to be allowed.' I don't know how that's enforceable given how many hands user data goes through. Most organizations that suck that data up sell it to several third parties who can then sell it to whoever they want. All the NSA has to do is go a few steps down the chain. So it doesn't matter. The NSA will continue, as you noted, to lawfully buy this data from third parties who are slightly less sketchy than X-Mode Social (what a name) and the FTC's toothless rule won't change a thing. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_re_nsa_purchase_of_domestic_metadata_and_ftc_order_on_data_brokers_with_attachments.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/signed_wyden_lett... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-order-prohibits-data-broker-x-mode-social-outlogic-selling-sensitive-location-data https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/... [3] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-releases-documents-confirming-the-nsa-buys-americans-internet-browsing-records-calls-on-intelligence-community-to-stop-buying-us-data-obtained-unlawfully-from-data-brokers-violating-recent-ftc-order https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-relea...
lumb63 3y ago
I see your point. Data collection is required to some degree to, e.g., prosecute criminals. Any agency tasked with law enforcement would use all means at their disposal to do that, and legally purchasing data on the open market does seem reasonable. I agree with you that the Constitution and laws as they are today are unlikely to find any issue with the practices in place. However, my interpretation of the spirit of the fourth amendment is that Americans should not have to tolerate their government (or its agencies) infringing on their privacy unless they are suspected of having done something wrong, which is why the purchase of data from data brokers seems wrong to me. Personally, I would deem such means permissible to investigate someone suspected of having committed a crime. Where I find issue is the widespread use of such techniques to monitor for crimes, since they come at such a large cost to personal privacy, and are searching for a needle in a haystack. Millions will have their privacy compromised so that maybe a single criminal can be caught, and personally, that cost is too high. I understand some folks might disagree that, but I hope Sen. Wyden, and others who join forces with him or follow him, will continue to represent that idea, and pursue legislation to codify it in law.

by ajross 3y ago

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.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I don't know about the rest of you, but when it comes to - Having enough money to retire into a dystopian hellhole that I spent my younger years creating - Making some hard decisions now so that I can have an average life in a functioning society later I'd prefer the latter. But conveniently, it's not HN that we need to convince to reign in advertising, it's the House and the Senate, and their voters are plenty suspicious of "big tech" whatever that is. And yeah, much more worried about the NSA than terrorists.

prpl 3y ago

Going a step further, they can just pay another middleman to do the analysis and write up reports to generate information to execute reasonable searches and seizures.

EGreg 3y ago
Actually, they can allow an entire free market of investigators to pop up and then pay them to do things. Like NHS does with doctors. In fact, we can remove the government from the equation altogether and have a free market
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  That might be a good move, because this government is feeling kind of stale, but I think we'd pretty quickly realize that free markets want some things that are worth preventing and a government would emerge to keep them from turning all roads into toll roads and other such excesses.

abofh 3y ago

While I get your point, the constitution is fundamentally _about_ hamstringing the government in ways you're fully allowed to privately contract away. It's about saying the government may pass any and all laws within these guidelines -- that's why you can shout fire at the top of a mountain and nobody cares, but in a privately owned theater it's not a free-speech issue. Or something like that - point is, if it wasn't doing anything wrong, why was it obscuring that fact through classification and NDA's until now - when as you say - it's public data that the government would (in your theory of constitutional law) be entitled to purchase?

troyvit 3y ago

Wyden's letter[1] is a lot more targeted than the Techdirt article. The letter says this: "The U.S. government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans’ privacy are not just unethical, but illegal," and refers specifically to an FTC order[2] that prohibits the government buying data from a specific shady broker (X-Mode Social). He summarizes the letter on his own site without the editorializing that honestly I love so much about Techdirt.[3] On a side-note, according to Wyden, 'Through this case, the FTC announced that Americans must be told and agree to their data being sold to “government contractors for national security purposes,” for the practice to be allowed.' I don't know how that's enforceable given how many hands user data goes through. Most organizations that suck that data up sell it to several third parties who can then sell it to whoever they want. All the NSA has to do is go a few steps down the chain. So it doesn't matter. The NSA will continue, as you noted, to lawfully buy this data from third parties who are slightly less sketchy than X-Mode Social (what a name) and the FTC's toothless rule won't change a thing. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_re_nsa_purchase_of_domestic_metadata_and_ftc_order_on_data_brokers_with_attachments.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/signed_wyden_lett... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-order-prohibits-data-broker-x-mode-social-outlogic-selling-sensitive-location-data https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/... [3] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-releases-documents-confirming-the-nsa-buys-americans-internet-browsing-records-calls-on-intelligence-community-to-stop-buying-us-data-obtained-unlawfully-from-data-brokers-violating-recent-ftc-order https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-relea...

lumb63 3y ago

I see your point. Data collection is required to some degree to, e.g., prosecute criminals. Any agency tasked with law enforcement would use all means at their disposal to do that, and legally purchasing data on the open market does seem reasonable. I agree with you that the Constitution and laws as they are today are unlikely to find any issue with the practices in place. However, my interpretation of the spirit of the fourth amendment is that Americans should not have to tolerate their government (or its agencies) infringing on their privacy unless they are suspected of having done something wrong, which is why the purchase of data from data brokers seems wrong to me. Personally, I would deem such means permissible to investigate someone suspected of having committed a crime. Where I find issue is the widespread use of such techniques to monitor for crimes, since they come at such a large cost to personal privacy, and are searching for a needle in a haystack. Millions will have their privacy compromised so that maybe a single criminal can be caught, and personally, that cost is too high. I understand some folks might disagree that, but I hope Sen. Wyden, and others who join forces with him or follow him, will continue to represent that idea, and pursue legislation to codify it in law.