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
In theory, the data was provided willingly when collected.

If you rent a locker, and the terms of the rental agreement say that the person you're renting from has access to the locker for any reason, then the cops do not need a warrant to ask the lessor to open the locker, only a warrant to coerce the lessor to open the locker.

If the lessor is willing to let anybody take a picture of what is in the locker for $5, then the government doing so isn't abusing its special privilege.

In practice, most people do not understand the ramifications of the things they agreed to that put this data out there (if they even read it!) and in many cases did not have reasonable alternatives to the services that they signed up for.

>>aidenn+Hf
In Europe it doesn't work like that. There you give consent to collect for a specific purpose and for any other purpose you need to go back to the source for another round of consent. This is something that many companies haven't implemented properly yet (but a surprisingly large number actually do).

>>jacque+Bg
And in reality, every process is a kafkean bureocratic nightmare were you end up having to say yes in order to advance and they milk your data anyway while also using privacy rethoric to prevent citizens from getting gov transparency.

The typical powerful west European countries are corrupt to the core and when people feel we are better off than in the US (self congratulatory posts are common) it's generally lack of political awareness and involvement more than anything.

>>isaacr+Zl
In reality, it just mostly works. Source: ample experience with European (no idea why you added 'West') companies that deal with my data. Since the GDPR has gone 'live' (as in: fines are being issued for non-compliance) the situation is improving every day.

>>jacque+Qp
It doesn't. I added west because I've lived in several countries of Europe and I'm talking about those and some other hegemonic ones I know about. The ones usually lauded due to not knowing about them. I'm European.

In this site there's a trend to treat Europe as a monolithic entity and pretend it's awesome. Any criticism gets taken as "Americuns" being ignorant and europe is awesome.

In reality, I see a lot of unwillingness to accept the political reality and pretend "we are better than USA" via political apathy and coping.

People react negatively when you point out polítical facts they don't want to see. It's easier to look at USA with an air of superiority. This also happens the other way around, of course, but HN demographics make one more typical.

>>isaacr+Pu3
I have lived in no less than 7 EU countries as well as Canada and a bunch of others and EU privacy laws + implementation are hands down the best in the world right now. Could they be better? Yes, absolutely. But nothing else even comes close.