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
> 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.

How about "more alarming to the lawmakers?"

Someone could show that movement info, for example, is available for sale on a legislator. Or a legislator's spouse or child.

Now do you see the problem, oh you who write the laws?

>>Animal+Za
Could someone start the 'Decentralized Intelligence Agency(, LLC)', buying, collating, and analyzing open market data feeds, and allowing subscribers to see what's known about themselves and others?

>>pjmorr+Pk
Yea sure. I mean that's already a thing to some extent, but, if you want the honest answer. Everything you do digitally is known about you. Your physical location, places you regularly go to and when, Websites you visit, your account names, etc. Even ISPs can sell your data these days.

>>thumbu+p22
I'm aware of this; I think many ordinary people and lawmakers are perhaps less clear on it, and that making it easy to see would help people understand the situation.