13 ms·

There's precedent where it's easier to spend some money and buy it from the third party data brokers. Why go through lawyer hurdles when you can just buy it pe

There's precedent where it's easier to spend some money and buy it from the third party data brokers. Why go through lawyer hurdles when you can just buy it perfectly legally?

dylan604 2y ago
Then don't make the 3rd party a for profit private company. Make it a new branch of the government. Make it part of the DoT or which ever company is responsible for collecting taxes in your locale. Intra agency operations would still be possible while removing direct access to LEOs. If you want your own information, pay your $25 type fees after proving who you are for printing/research/etc that are typical when requesting official gov't records. If you're another gov't agency, provide the warrant granting access to civilian records.
- hiatus 2y ago
  > Then don't make the 3rd party a for profit private company. Make it a new branch of the government. Who is this directed at? The company wasn't started as a branch of government. What exactly are you proposing? That the government create its own network of cameras for surveillance? Have government-created solutions never been abused by law enforcement in the past?
- Spooky23 2y ago
  We already do that. Government has strict firewalls to access DMV data, so DMVs sell the stream of data to various parties, and the government buys it back from the third party or any non-police purpose. A company like ID.me basically performs a function that any state government could do itself or through a contractor at lower cost and without the privacy issues of providing the data to third parties. The law has failed us here - privacy attorneys basically focus on providing notification on a “take it or leave it” basis.
  - imtheopposite 2y ago
    [dead]
- kartoffelsaft 2y ago
  The argument is not that this theoretical 3rd party would be a for-profit company, but that there's already existing for-profit companies that exist and could serve that purpose, and that the new 3rd party wouldn't see much use because of that. They almost certainly are willing to buy hordes of data off of google/facebook/etc.; it's useful data that they're already negotiating to get. Why, then, would they be want to put in the effort for a warrant on cctv footage when the suspect's google search and maps history they're alreaty getting contain the same info and more? At best, your creating a small amount of competition for data brokers, and I question if it's that much.

There's precedent where it's easier to spend some money and buy it from the third party data brokers. Why go through lawyer hurdles when you can just buy it perfectly legally?

dylan604 2y ago

Then don't make the 3rd party a for profit private company. Make it a new branch of the government. Make it part of the DoT or which ever company is responsible for collecting taxes in your locale. Intra agency operations would still be possible while removing direct access to LEOs. If you want your own information, pay your $25 type fees after proving who you are for printing/research/etc that are typical when requesting official gov't records. If you're another gov't agency, provide the warrant granting access to civilian records.

hiatus 2y ago
> Then don't make the 3rd party a for profit private company. Make it a new branch of the government. Who is this directed at? The company wasn't started as a branch of government. What exactly are you proposing? That the government create its own network of cameras for surveillance? Have government-created solutions never been abused by law enforcement in the past?
Spooky23 2y ago
We already do that. Government has strict firewalls to access DMV data, so DMVs sell the stream of data to various parties, and the government buys it back from the third party or any non-police purpose. A company like ID.me basically performs a function that any state government could do itself or through a contractor at lower cost and without the privacy issues of providing the data to third parties. The law has failed us here - privacy attorneys basically focus on providing notification on a “take it or leave it” basis.
- imtheopposite 2y ago
  [dead]
kartoffelsaft 2y ago
The argument is not that this theoretical 3rd party would be a for-profit company, but that there's already existing for-profit companies that exist and could serve that purpose, and that the new 3rd party wouldn't see much use because of that. They almost certainly are willing to buy hordes of data off of google/facebook/etc.; it's useful data that they're already negotiating to get. Why, then, would they be want to put in the effort for a warrant on cctv footage when the suspect's google search and maps history they're alreaty getting contain the same info and more? At best, your creating a small amount of competition for data brokers, and I question if it's that much.