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
Could some form of copyright or ownership help with this? The reason they can sell it is because it's theirs. Not yours. If you retained ownership of that data somehow would they need a warrant for it?

>>2OEH8e+ip
Copyright isn't really ownership and only applies to creative works, software and works that exceed the threshold of originality. It doesn't apply to metadata, location information, secrets and facts about people.

Ownership as a concept doesn't really apply so well to digital things because they are infinitely copy-able. I can have something digital, and you can have it too.

There's certainly a need for better privacy laws which applies to PII but that doesn't really need to be conflated with copyright and ownership.