3 ms·

I do really hope some day we get legislation that recognizes the data broker hole in the 4th Amendment. IMO if the information would require a warrant/subpoena

by rtkwe 2y ago

I do really hope some day we get legislation that recognizes the data broker hole in the 4th Amendment. IMO if the information would require a warrant/subpoena to get if the police collect it it should require a warrant for them to purchase the data from a 3rd party.

cortesoft 2y ago
I feel like if we don't like the government buying this data from a broker, we should make laws that make it so NO one can buy that data from a broker.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  True that's an ideal outcome, given the option though I'd at least block the government from having it.
potato3732842 2y ago
There isn't even a hint of extending "papers and effects" to "digital stuff held by a 3rd party" yet. I wouldn't hold my breath. But yes, it's a massive oversight and should be closed. But it won't be because the government benefits soooo much from being able to scrutinize any person's past metadata going back god knows how long on a whim. And speaking of "going back god knows how long". I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that in the whole Fani Lewis Georgia thing they at one point introduced 10yo (!!!) cell location data as evidince in court like it was nothing and normal evidince to have on hand. I forget which side introduced the data or what the "sides" even were in that case but imagine having to defend your cherry picked whereabouts a decade ago from a prosecution team who's already built a narrative about them.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I could see the courts or legislature taking action on things like location data tracking and some other stuff but I'm not super hopeful on that much less the kind of metadata generated by calls and what not. Ideally both would be covered but I think the former might get some protection before things like call or contact metadata.
observationist 2y ago
The nearly unlimited acquisition of private data should be tightly regulated, ephemeral by default, require total transparency in disclosure to any party for any use. Any time any ad or government agency or private individual obtains your data, you should be notified at the expense of the entity obtaining the data. Everything should be proactive and favor the rights of individuals. Not following regulations should be lethal to corporations, disincentivizing the mindless global surveillance apparatus we have now.
sbuttgereit 2y ago
I actually hope that we __don't__ get a law. What I hope is that cases like this succeed in getting the precedent and recognition that we already have a law that prohibits systematic data collection and use like this: the 4th Amendment. Accepting the premise that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here is to accept the very premise that allows governments to try this sort of thing. The courts making clear that the 4th Amendment should be interpreted broadly and that it doesn't matter how novel your surveillance/search methods are to that end is ultimately superior to playing legislative whack-a-mole.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I think a law is more likely before the Supreme Court does anything close to patching that loophole.
lancesells 2y ago
I would much rather they pass laws that you can't acquire, indefinitely hold, or sell the data. Meta and Google should not know where I went for breakfast if I didn't use their services to get there.

by rtkwe 2y ago

cortesoft 2y ago

I feel like if we don't like the government buying this data from a broker, we should make laws that make it so NO one can buy that data from a broker.

rtkwe 2y ago
True that's an ideal outcome, given the option though I'd at least block the government from having it.

potato3732842 2y ago

There isn't even a hint of extending "papers and effects" to "digital stuff held by a 3rd party" yet. I wouldn't hold my breath. But yes, it's a massive oversight and should be closed. But it won't be because the government benefits soooo much from being able to scrutinize any person's past metadata going back god knows how long on a whim. And speaking of "going back god knows how long". I hope I'm not the only one who noticed that in the whole Fani Lewis Georgia thing they at one point introduced 10yo (!!!) cell location data as evidince in court like it was nothing and normal evidince to have on hand. I forget which side introduced the data or what the "sides" even were in that case but imagine having to defend your cherry picked whereabouts a decade ago from a prosecution team who's already built a narrative about them.

rtkwe 2y ago
I could see the courts or legislature taking action on things like location data tracking and some other stuff but I'm not super hopeful on that much less the kind of metadata generated by calls and what not. Ideally both would be covered but I think the former might get some protection before things like call or contact metadata.

observationist 2y ago

The nearly unlimited acquisition of private data should be tightly regulated, ephemeral by default, require total transparency in disclosure to any party for any use. Any time any ad or government agency or private individual obtains your data, you should be notified at the expense of the entity obtaining the data. Everything should be proactive and favor the rights of individuals. Not following regulations should be lethal to corporations, disincentivizing the mindless global surveillance apparatus we have now.

sbuttgereit 2y ago

I actually hope that we __don't__ get a law. What I hope is that cases like this succeed in getting the precedent and recognition that we already have a law that prohibits systematic data collection and use like this: the 4th Amendment. Accepting the premise that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here is to accept the very premise that allows governments to try this sort of thing. The courts making clear that the 4th Amendment should be interpreted broadly and that it doesn't matter how novel your surveillance/search methods are to that end is ultimately superior to playing legislative whack-a-mole.

rtkwe 2y ago
I think a law is more likely before the Supreme Court does anything close to patching that loophole.

lancesells 2y ago

I would much rather they pass laws that you can't acquire, indefinitely hold, or sell the data. Meta and Google should not know where I went for breakfast if I didn't use their services to get there.