3 ms·

That’s a crazy solution to a legislative problem. Also, source that call records are sold? I thought even the government (non federal security apparatus) need

That’s a crazy solution to a legislative problem. Also, source that call records are sold? I thought even the government (non federal security apparatus) needed a warrant to get access to that information?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
sounds like I need to start dialing some random businesses to fuck up my ads
kevingadd 3y ago
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/att-phone-records-police/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The source material on page 9 and 10 claims a subpoena is necessary: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/02/us/hemisphere-project.html?_r=0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013... Therefore, I am confused whether or not a warrant is needed. If the phone networks were straight up selling call records, then surely no law enforcement agency would bother with warrants.
  - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
    Buying the records could cause issues potentially in court. The selling of 'evidence' can cause various conflicts of interest. That said I would be completely unsurprised if they were used for 'parallel discovery' purposes.
  - throwaway81523 3y ago
    Call records have never needed a warrant (lookup "pen registers"). Call contents (i.e. wiretaps) have in principle always needed a warrant, modulo many exceptions. These days though, call records seem to be for sale to anyone who wants them, whether or not that is legal.
    - gopher_space 3y ago
      A private investigator could fill us in, but if you look at the different personal data services you'll see a lot of "check this box to agree that you have a valid legal reason to pay us $75 for your ex's info" type setups. Pirate Code law.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Subscriber data: court order. Communications: warrant. Metadata: it depends. (Not a general rule but a useful heuristic).
hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago
KP's phone carrier, the caller's carrier, or an intermediate phone network maybe selling metadata to data brokers. The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. * There are limited carve-outs for medical records and such.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. Yes. I think what's being alluded to is that the ultimate problem lies there, and carving out special systems and cases to legislate to avoid bad behavior that might results from that will always fall short of what we could get with some more overarching legislation that makes it so the end person retains at least enough rights about that data to know when it's happening and preferably be able to stop it and requiring very stringent rules about those that do attempt it with permission from end users. At that point it's no longer about finding which if the data aggregators are doing unsavory things with the data they get from you and trying to find some way to get them to stop and it's then about any data broker that wants your information trying to get you to allow it (because there are undoubtedly cases where the data is good for society and even good for you) needs to justify what and why and how they use it. Edit: And there would be legal recourse if they don't follow those legal standards, of course. It's implied, but might as well be stated outright.
  - smolder 3y ago
    I think the better starting point would be that businesses have no right to share personally identifying information about their customers (short of court orders) and the carve outs go the other way. I should then grant the "identity handling rights", by way of a license, to businesses, as needed. Put some standards around the language and method of establishing consent so it can't be buried in EULAs, and then I'll be happy to check a box to grant businesses to transact with my PII on my behalf if there is a legitimate need.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago

sounds like I need to start dialing some random businesses to fuck up my ads

kevingadd 3y ago

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/att-phone-records-police/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a23567/...

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The source material on page 9 and 10 claims a subpoena is necessary: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/02/us/hemisphere-project.html?_r=0 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013... Therefore, I am confused whether or not a warrant is needed. If the phone networks were straight up selling call records, then surely no law enforcement agency would bother with warrants.
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago
  Buying the records could cause issues potentially in court. The selling of 'evidence' can cause various conflicts of interest. That said I would be completely unsurprised if they were used for 'parallel discovery' purposes.
- throwaway81523 3y ago
  Call records have never needed a warrant (lookup "pen registers"). Call contents (i.e. wiretaps) have in principle always needed a warrant, modulo many exceptions. These days though, call records seem to be for sale to anyone who wants them, whether or not that is legal.
  - gopher_space 3y ago
    A private investigator could fill us in, but if you look at the different personal data services you'll see a lot of "check this box to agree that you have a valid legal reason to pay us $75 for your ex's info" type setups. Pirate Code law.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Subscriber data: court order. Communications: warrant. Metadata: it depends. (Not a general rule but a useful heuristic).

hi-v-rocknroll 3y ago

KP's phone carrier, the caller's carrier, or an intermediate phone network maybe selling metadata to data brokers. The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. * There are limited carve-outs for medical records and such.

kbenson 3y ago
> The current practice in America is that once data* about a person has been disclosed to a business by any means, the person loses all rights to it and it becomes the property of that business to do with and resell it however they want. Yes. I think what's being alluded to is that the ultimate problem lies there, and carving out special systems and cases to legislate to avoid bad behavior that might results from that will always fall short of what we could get with some more overarching legislation that makes it so the end person retains at least enough rights about that data to know when it's happening and preferably be able to stop it and requiring very stringent rules about those that do attempt it with permission from end users. At that point it's no longer about finding which if the data aggregators are doing unsavory things with the data they get from you and trying to find some way to get them to stop and it's then about any data broker that wants your information trying to get you to allow it (because there are undoubtedly cases where the data is good for society and even good for you) needs to justify what and why and how they use it. Edit: And there would be legal recourse if they don't follow those legal standards, of course. It's implied, but might as well be stated outright.
- smolder 3y ago
  I think the better starting point would be that businesses have no right to share personally identifying information about their customers (short of court orders) and the carve outs go the other way. I should then grant the "identity handling rights", by way of a license, to businesses, as needed. Put some standards around the language and method of establishing consent so it can't be buried in EULAs, and then I'll be happy to check a box to grant businesses to transact with my PII on my behalf if there is a legitimate need.