151–160 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or rent an apartment/house in many cases
While this is true on a very shallow level, most landlords are happy to rent to "high risk" tenants with increased deposits if you talk to them directly instead of taking your initial rejection at face value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we need to understand the purpose of the data collection and what bad things might happen because of it. If Treasury is using this data to catch people who violate economic sanctions, ok. If the IRS is using this data to catch people who cheat on their taxes, ok. I don't love either of those things, but they are using the data only to do things that have been defined as their job to do for a long time now. Th…
I think history has shown enough times, that there needs to be a bigger barrier than, "no evidence currently that this data will be used in ways that differ from the stated reason"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the government from taking actions that private actors could legally do, it compels private actors to act according to state whims. If someone volunteers information, it is not a "circumvention" of the subpoena. Breaking into Google and stealing information for a criminal investigation would be circumventing it.
> The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the government from taking actions that private actors could legally do Irrelevant. Gov wants data, Gov gets a narrowly targeted warrant first. Beyond this lies 4A violations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't rely on SCOTUS to make this ruling for another 50+ years, so our best hope is to start with state legislators. The majority of law enforcement happens at a state level, and most state legislators aren't as hamstrung as the federal one is, so this is the easiest way to achieve the most impactful results. Also, POTUS is in charge of most federal law enforcement agencies. So it might be possible to handle this…
Feels like it would be more airtight to amend the Constitution. Why hope that precedence falls a certain way instead of removing any ambiguity from the law?
Sure, you’re probably right that it’d be more airtight. It’d also mean an almost herculean effort. It’s probably best to explore other options as well.
We need a Supreme Court ruling or law that says if the government doesn’t have a warrant to collect your data, they also can’t buy it from third parties. We also need privacy protections so these companies wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a private company can buy the data why shouldn't the government be able to? The real solution is to not allow the data to be sold to anyone.
Private companies (theoretically/ideally) don't have the power of life and death over you
Actually they do. See this for just one of the many ways they have that power:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/21/teen-dies-hours-after...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like it would be more airtight to amend the Constitution. Why hope that precedence falls a certain way instead of removing any ambiguity from the law?
The last amendment to the US constitution that was proposed and then ratified came in 1971. With bipartisanship being what it is today, do you think there’s any chance of pushing another one through at this point in time? The bar is high, and American politicians are loathe to give any opponents perceived wins, even if it’s regarding overwhelmingly popular policies. Sure, you’re probably right that it’d be more airti…