4 ms·
> The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI. Why would
by hiatus 3y ago
> The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.
Why would buying information you have no right to privacy for require a warrant? Police do not need warrants for generally publicly available information, and if anyone can buy this information why not police? Similar to how police do not require a warrant when they ask a phone company for records and the company just gives it to them without question.
If police ask you to search your house, you could let them or you could tell them to come back with a warrant but if you let them they can use what they find.
- JohnFen 3y agoWe need to change the legal premise that entities have the right to give up data they've collected on people without the express informed consent of those people, no matter who those entities want to give that data to.
- edgyquant 3y agoPeople are consenting to this, that’s the issue. We need to change data privacy laws in general, the government buying it isn’t the real problem here it’s that it is for sale at all.
- JohnFen 3y ago> People are consenting to this, that’s the issue. I don't think they are, by and large. At least, not "consent" in any meaningful sense.
- austin-cheney 3y agoThat is an irrelevant argument. With regard to the fourth amendment all that matters is whether the government is using that information to harm or detain somebody. It does not matter how much value you place upon that information or whether anybody should have it or not. NSA are not law enforcement, so comparing the NSA to law enforcement results in absurd conclusions.