3 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 sp

> 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.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      It doesn't violate the spirit of the 4th, nor is it a loophole. The 4th is not a prohibition on the government collecting information, nor is it a data privacy law. The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel. Volunteered information isn't compelled by definition, so it is fine. This was the case then and it is the case now. > 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. Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information? These existed when the BoR was written. They weren't prohibited by the writers because the writers didn't have an issue with it. The 4th isn't a "government can't know anything or can't ask anything" rule, it's a "government can't bust down your door for no reason" rule. > 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. The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing.
      - godelski 3y ago
        The reason we cannot agree is because you refuse to acknowledge the direction of action. There is a difference if you report to the cops and if the cops come to you and ask you to report. These are completely different. You taking action: okay. Cops taking action: needs due process. Full stop. > The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel. Let's get the 4th in here to so we actually read it and not from memory > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th is in part about government abusing its power, and that's true for all amendments. But it is clear that the 4th is about protecting information. I do not think it is hard to read as "The government is not allowed to collect information on people without warrants and without due probable cause." It clearly has a legal setting for this given that it is what is cited to prohibit wiretapping[0] and I'll even quote Justice Potter[1] > For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Note that the stress here is on intention to have public and intention to have private. You are protected even if in the public but intending to be private. Surely Potter would believe that were one to walk to a secluded area to hold a phone conversation and the government followed to secretly listen in, that this would be within the protection of the 4th Amendment. Many people incorrectly assume that you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy out in public. You sure can and everyone does it. Bathrooms are an uncontestable example. > Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information? The government cannot print wanted posters without due process. Yes, I have no problem with this. The due process part is essential. > The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing. There is a huge difference between someone coming to the government out of their own free will -- someone who is not under duress nor are they incentivized by payment -- than the government making a request. Action is important. The government here is making an explicit action to seek and gather information. Obviously I do not object to someone reporting a crime and I should not need repeat myself any further. There's a reason this is different and you need to stop pigeonholing me into a completely irrelevant argument. Here's how this can be abused. The government (or "friend") creates a private corporation. Private corporation does everything that the government cannot do without getting a warrant. Private corporation then gives the information to gov. How is this not a loophole? That's the thing. The government is __seeking__ information that it would normally require a warrant to obtain. Were companies to freely offer this information to the government, then that's a completely different scenario and precisely the one you keep arguing which no one disagrees with. But if the government takes action to elicit that information, (aka ACTION) then that is not the same thing as information volunteered. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment [1] https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/civicscontest/2019/bomlee.pdf https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/civicscontest/2019/b...

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.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    It doesn't violate the spirit of the 4th, nor is it a loophole. The 4th is not a prohibition on the government collecting information, nor is it a data privacy law. The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel. Volunteered information isn't compelled by definition, so it is fine. This was the case then and it is the case now. > 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. Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information? These existed when the BoR was written. They weren't prohibited by the writers because the writers didn't have an issue with it. The 4th isn't a "government can't know anything or can't ask anything" rule, it's a "government can't bust down your door for no reason" rule. > 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. The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing.
    - godelski 3y ago
      The reason we cannot agree is because you refuse to acknowledge the direction of action. There is a difference if you report to the cops and if the cops come to you and ask you to report. These are completely different. You taking action: okay. Cops taking action: needs due process. Full stop. > The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel. Let's get the 4th in here to so we actually read it and not from memory > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th is in part about government abusing its power, and that's true for all amendments. But it is clear that the 4th is about protecting information. I do not think it is hard to read as "The government is not allowed to collect information on people without warrants and without due probable cause." It clearly has a legal setting for this given that it is what is cited to prohibit wiretapping[0] and I'll even quote Justice Potter[1] > For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Note that the stress here is on intention to have public and intention to have private. You are protected even if in the public but intending to be private. Surely Potter would believe that were one to walk to a secluded area to hold a phone conversation and the government followed to secretly listen in, that this would be within the protection of the 4th Amendment. Many people incorrectly assume that you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy out in public. You sure can and everyone does it. Bathrooms are an uncontestable example. > Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information? The government cannot print wanted posters without due process. Yes, I have no problem with this. The due process part is essential. > The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing. There is a huge difference between someone coming to the government out of their own free will -- someone who is not under duress nor are they incentivized by payment -- than the government making a request. Action is important. The government here is making an explicit action to seek and gather information. Obviously I do not object to someone reporting a crime and I should not need repeat myself any further. There's a reason this is different and you need to stop pigeonholing me into a completely irrelevant argument. Here's how this can be abused. The government (or "friend") creates a private corporation. Private corporation does everything that the government cannot do without getting a warrant. Private corporation then gives the information to gov. How is this not a loophole? That's the thing. The government is __seeking__ information that it would normally require a warrant to obtain. Were companies to freely offer this information to the government, then that's a completely different scenario and precisely the one you keep arguing which no one disagrees with. But if the government takes action to elicit that information, (aka ACTION) then that is not the same thing as information volunteered. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment [1] https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/civicscontest/2019/bomlee.pdf https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/civicscontest/2019/b...