5 ms·

> I think the crux of the issue is the doctrine that, if a > company is a party to handling my data, whether > privately or as part of delivery to another p

> I think the crux of the issue is the doctrine that, if a > company is a party to handling my data, whether > privately or as part of delivery to another person, > that company may voluntarily share information with the > government. I think it's a failing of our > constitutional law against unreasonable search and > seizure that this precedent was set. Voluntarily supplying information to the government is not a violation of the constitution. There are many reasonable cases where private companies should share information with the government (e.g. for handling illegal content); if I hear gunshots and screaming coming from the house next door, I am allowed to call the police. Such voluntary sharing is typically limited by the privacy policies of the companies involved. But the whole NSA debate isn't about voluntary data sharing at all, it's about the government demanding access (or simply breaking in) without a warrant. The NSA's tapping of fiber lines is equivalent to the local SWAT team walking into my bank and rifling through everyone's deposit boxes. There's not much the bank can do about that except lobby against warrantless searches. > Would it be reasonable to change the laws of our > society such that no person may share another person's > digital information with the government [1], except as > required by law What do you do when the law says "NSA gets to demand whatever it wants for any reason?"

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jjoonathan 13y ago
> the whole NSA debate isn't about voluntary data sharing at all, it's about the government demanding access (or simply breaking in) without a warrant. Why not both? The NSA "breaking in" is certainly a problem, but I don't understand why the third party doctrine isn't. > There are many reasonable cases where private companies should share information with the government Yes, but the third party doctrine goes far beyond what I would consider "reasonable." > Voluntarily supplying information to the government is not a violation of the constitution. That's up for interpretation. The extent to which single companies held large swaths of information about our lives has changed dramatically in the last decade. Do you seriously believe that, if the constitution were written in the present day, personal information (of some description) would not be included in the 4th? Alternatively > 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 I'd consider anything in gmail/gdocs to be "papers and effects" of mine. I understand that the US government has a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > Why not both? The NSA "breaking in" is certainly a > problem, but I don't understand why the third party > doctrine isn't. Could you elaborate on why you think the third-party doctrine is relevant to voluntary sharing?
- rayiner 13y ago
  The root question in the 4th amendment is whether the belief that certain information is private is objectively reasonable. The premise of the third party doctrine is that it's not objectively reasonable to consider information private when you've given up control of that information to a third party. How can something be private when it's at the total discretion of someone else to disseminate that information? Whether you agree with this or not, you have to admit: your gmail/gdocs isn't exactly "papers and effects" in the same way as the "papers and effects" in your desk drawer. Not because they are digital, but because the contents of your desk drawer aren't routinely rummaged through by other people, or data mined for targeted advertising, or anything like that. When the question is: is it reasonable to expect these documents to remain private, those things must certainly factor into the equation. It's very relevant that "single companies [hold] large swaths of information about our lives" but that doesn't mean it's automatically protected by the 4th amendment, or that how that information is handled today justifies expecting a privacy interest to exist in that data. The 4th amendment must accommodate the transition from paper to digital, sure, but you can't erase the word "private" from "reasonable expectation of privacy." There are certainly ways Google could make a clearer case for extending 4th amendment protection to gmail/gdocs. Essentially, make it more reasonable to expect that information to be private. Stop data-mining it for targeted advertising, encrypt it client-side, institute rigorous procedures for who has access to that information, perhaps lobby for laws to create enforceable penalties for cloud companies who allow employees to access the data without absolute need. These are essentially the analogues of what protects bank safe deposit boxes despite the third party doctrine: banks don't routinely look in safe deposit boxes, they don't ask what's inside, they have extensive protocols to prevent employee access, etc. They are "private" both legally and factually. In order to make a convincing case that information in the cloud is "private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment, cloud companies have to move in a direction of ensuring that the information is actually "private" as a matter of fact.
randomfool 13y ago
My understanding is that there are some privacy regulations which still apply to sharing with the government and this is why CISPA was being proposed- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_.... I do not know if the NSA is exempt, or certain data is exempt. But I share your concerns and see this as another reason why CISPA must be defeated.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jjoonathan 13y ago

> the whole NSA debate isn't about voluntary data sharing at all, it's about the government demanding access (or simply breaking in) without a warrant. Why not both? The NSA "breaking in" is certainly a problem, but I don't understand why the third party doctrine isn't. > There are many reasonable cases where private companies should share information with the government Yes, but the third party doctrine goes far beyond what I would consider "reasonable." > Voluntarily supplying information to the government is not a violation of the constitution. That's up for interpretation. The extent to which single companies held large swaths of information about our lives has changed dramatically in the last decade. Do you seriously believe that, if the constitution were written in the present day, personal information (of some description) would not be included in the 4th? Alternatively > 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 I'd consider anything in gmail/gdocs to be "papers and effects" of mine. I understand that the US government has a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

jmillikin 13y ago
> Why not both? The NSA "breaking in" is certainly a > problem, but I don't understand why the third party > doctrine isn't. Could you elaborate on why you think the third-party doctrine is relevant to voluntary sharing?
rayiner 13y ago
The root question in the 4th amendment is whether the belief that certain information is private is objectively reasonable. The premise of the third party doctrine is that it's not objectively reasonable to consider information private when you've given up control of that information to a third party. How can something be private when it's at the total discretion of someone else to disseminate that information? Whether you agree with this or not, you have to admit: your gmail/gdocs isn't exactly "papers and effects" in the same way as the "papers and effects" in your desk drawer. Not because they are digital, but because the contents of your desk drawer aren't routinely rummaged through by other people, or data mined for targeted advertising, or anything like that. When the question is: is it reasonable to expect these documents to remain private, those things must certainly factor into the equation. It's very relevant that "single companies [hold] large swaths of information about our lives" but that doesn't mean it's automatically protected by the 4th amendment, or that how that information is handled today justifies expecting a privacy interest to exist in that data. The 4th amendment must accommodate the transition from paper to digital, sure, but you can't erase the word "private" from "reasonable expectation of privacy." There are certainly ways Google could make a clearer case for extending 4th amendment protection to gmail/gdocs. Essentially, make it more reasonable to expect that information to be private. Stop data-mining it for targeted advertising, encrypt it client-side, institute rigorous procedures for who has access to that information, perhaps lobby for laws to create enforceable penalties for cloud companies who allow employees to access the data without absolute need. These are essentially the analogues of what protects bank safe deposit boxes despite the third party doctrine: banks don't routinely look in safe deposit boxes, they don't ask what's inside, they have extensive protocols to prevent employee access, etc. They are "private" both legally and factually. In order to make a convincing case that information in the cloud is "private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment, cloud companies have to move in a direction of ensuring that the information is actually "private" as a matter of fact.

randomfool 13y ago

My understanding is that there are some privacy regulations which still apply to sharing with the government and this is why CISPA was being proposed- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_.... I do not know if the NSA is exempt, or certain data is exempt. But I share your concerns and see this as another reason why CISPA must be defeated.