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
What i don't understand is why if it's illegal and forbidden for the government to directly indiscriminately collect information and data on citizens, they can buy the same information from data brokers without an issue? Surely this violates the intent of the law.

>>mc32+0e
There are a ton of 'workarounds' like that in play, parallel construction being one of the most extreme ones. It's interesting how these invariably work very well when it is the government in the position of the plaintiff but citizens will never ever see the benefit of any of this. Cameras everywhere, but good luck if your car gets stolen. Meanwhile all of your movements are tracked with abandon, ANPR on every second street and so on. Privacy is very hard to come by.

At the same time: I sympathize with LE and intelligence service operators that have their heart in the right place and that would just like to be able to do their jobs in a hostile and hard to navigate digital environment. Tech moves so much faster than they can keep up with.

>>jacque+og
If law enforcement has a reason to obtain data, they should be able to get a warrant to obtain data for people of direct interest. But especially the federal gov should not be able to have data that they cannot legally obtain directly from the population. What good is a law and right of the population, if it can be trivially circumvented?

Having data on everyone and then only using it against people they want to use it against is exactly what the Stasi did. Obviously this is their dream come true --just a little to late for them.

>>mc32+ci
> What good is a law and right of the population, if it can be trivially circumvented

U.S. v. Miller [1], which established the third-party doctrine, turned on whether "the business records of the banks" to which the defendant could "assert neither ownership nor possession" could be accessed by subpoena versus court-authorized warrant. (The context turns on bank records. Smith v. Maryland [2] expands it to "phone numbers [conveyed] to the telephone company.")

This seems trivially fixable with legislation. Requests made by the government to third parties in respect of specific persons' non-public (even if not strictly confidential) records require court approval or the first party's consent. Also, easier than trying to expand he definition of "houses, papers, and effects" [3] to cover our data in various clouds: defining, in statute, that there is a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers one dials to speak to or message with another person or persons, e-mails one sends to a small group of people, handles one provides a messaging service marketed as encrypted, and articles (e.g. documents, photos and work products) uploaded to a third party's server for personal use.

[1] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

[2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/