zlacker

>>wut42+(OP)
There are different incidents here.

The first one where the police uploaded videos and wanted viewer information is absolutely egregious and makes me wonder how a court could authorize that.

The next one, which I didn’t fully understand, but appeared to be in response to a swatting incident where the culprit is believed to have watched a specific camera livestream and the police provided a lot of narrowing details (time period, certain other characteristics, etc) appears far more legitimate.

>>addict+J6
I don't understand how either of these are remotely constitutional. They sure aren't what is in the spirit.

They asked for information about a video watched 30k times. Supposing every person watched that video 10 times AND supposing the target was one of the viewers (it really isn't clear that this is true), that's 2999 people who have had their rights violated to search for one. I believe Blackstone has something to say about this[0]. Literally 30x Blackstone's ratio, who heavily influenced the founding fathers.

I don't think any of this appears legitimate.

Edit: Ops [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

>>godels+Zb
Cell phone tower data has been used for a decade now in pretty much the same way.

Did you happen to pass by a cell tower in a major city around the time a crime was committed? We all have.

Well, your IEMI was included in a cell tower dump. Probably dozens of times.

Did you happen to drive your car over any bridge in the Bay Area lately? Did a municipal vehicle pass you and catch your license plate with their ALPR camera?

Guess what? Your name went through a database of an LEO search if they wanted to find a perp for that time/location.

Privacy has been dead for a long time. The worst part is people don’t care.

The Snowden files changed nothing. If there was ever a point in history where people would have given up their cell phones for their civil liberties, that would have been the time to do it.

>>mingus+kd
The concept introduced by the Supreme Court regarding Pen register is consistent with all the examples you have given.

Anytime you willing share data with a 3rd party the law assumes you aren't keeping it private.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

If you want to keep something private don't share it outside of your house.

>>detour+RX
Except that existing in modern society requires giving immense amounts of personal information for even basic transactions.

>>Geezus+sY
It's beyond absurd and desperately needs to be addressed. Too bad both the government and corporations stand to loose too much that I doubt it will be treated seriously.

>>morkal+531
I personally think that the Apple anti-trust is being pushed due to their privacy stance.

Apple looked at the pen register cases and realized the best position to be in as a third party is to not possess usable data.

The US case from my point of view is trying to fore Apple to share user data with third parties.

>>detour+xd1
How would a successful antitrust verdict against Apple further the NSA's implicit dogma of "insecure by default"? Especially if it winds up breaking up Apple into many pieces. It's far easier for a centralized tech industry to bend the knee to the NSA than a distributed one.

>>kmeist+os3
>It's far easier for a centralized tech industry to bend the knee to the NSA than a distributed one.

I don't agree. NSA can hack/pressure smaller companies much easier than a giant like Apple.