zlacker

>>benwer+(OP)
The government couldn't do it this easily if it wasn't for sale.

It being for sale means anyone can be doing it which might be a framing that would be more alarming to the law-and-order types.

But really you need a two prong solution:

1) restrict this from being collected and compiled in the first place, eliminate the ability to default to this tracking unless someone opts out

2) restrict the government's ability to use or acquire through non-market-based means. The claim here is that there's already restrictions on this vs directly surveiling, but I haven't seen directly which specific restrictions those are for buying off-the-shelf info and the article doesn't specify.

There are very really no companies that I trust to keep my data safe for 10, 20, 50 years. Leadership changes, ownership changes, etc. We have to cut it off at the source.

>>majorm+08
I don’t fully disagree but there is still a big difference. People voluntarily give these companies their data. The companies aren’t skirting the law. We shouldn’t gatekeep disallowing government spying behind better consumer protections.

The kicker in all this is that the taxpayers are literally paying for this. We are paying to give the government our own data.

>>noneth+vs
My alarm bells for the Appeal to the Law fallacy went off. I see it quite often. When we’re discussing what the law should be, what the law currently is is irrelevant (unless your position is that laws should not change).

The fact that it is currently legal to harvest this data and the fact that it is currently legal for the government to purchase it should have no bearing on whether they should be able to in the future.

Further, there is a serious question with regards to the extent to which these businesses had the actual informed consent of their users. Do people fully understand that their information will be sold to data brokers? Do they understand that the government will be able to purchase said info with our money (and possibly use this information to incarcerate them)? The latter is almost certainly no, which is why the government fought so hard to keep it a secret.