201–210 of 386 posts
Unfortunately, this isn't really the Fed's buying their way around the 4th amendment as the article states: it's people selling away their 4th amendment rights by giving their personal data & right to resell it to companies that will sell to anyone with the cash to buy it.
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…
>> We can't rely on SCOTUS to make this ruling for another 50+ years If that's a comment about the bureaucracy working slowly as hell, that is reasonable. If it's about the makeup of the court, I disagree. Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch are two you want on the court in this case.
What makes you say that? From what I can tell, Gorsuch doesn't seem keen on limiting law enforcement powers at all. Kavanaugh is a bit of a wild card, but I'd be curious to hear times when he's agreed on limited police powers.
> The new rule the Court seems to formulate puts needed, reasonable, accepted, lawful, and congressionally authorized criminal investigations at serious risk in serious cases, often when law enforcement seeks to prevent the threat of violent crimes. And it places undue restrictions on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised not only by the Federal Government, but also by law enforcement in every State and locality throughout the Nation.
Unfortunately, this isn't really the Fed's buying their way around the 4th amendment as the article states: it's people selling away their 4th amendment rights by giving their personal data & right to resell it to companies that will sell to anyone with the cash to buy it.
As I understand it, that's not quite true. I can't get a phone provider that won't pen register my data off. It's not an option and it's entirely not practical to conduct life without a phone of some kind.
People say they want privacy, but people say a lot of things they don't mean. Instead I look at their actions. No one's willing to inconvenience themselves even slightly for privacy.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web data brokers can't legally kick in your door and kill everyone inside.
Neither can the government generally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a good chance the Constitution covers this now. What we need are uncompromised courts to hear and rule on 4A violations.
I'd agree that the 4th Amendment ought to cover it. It isn't unambiguous, though. It isn't hard to see how a lawyer could point out that "and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law" says nothing about purchasing data from a 3rd party. This wasn't really something that would have come up in the 18th century. Extend…
They wouldn't go for a sensible modern reading but instead stick to gospel like dogma on how it was intended to be read 250 years ago I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a Supreme Court ruling: if there's no law outlawing it, there's no basis for them to rule against it. Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this matter?
Here you go: "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Does anyone know what day Tech Inquiry provided these documents to The Intercept? Seems kinda convenient we get our nice exciting "adversarial" article about this four days /after/ the infrastructure bill passes and we are locked in to have tons of new bank surveillance and like 80,000 new IRS agents...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law enforcement functions any more than I want the army to, for similar reasons. The type of oversight applied to military and foreign intelligence action is fundamentally political. Whether and how to impose sanctions against, spy on, or invade another country are questions for congress and the president in the US and rarely involve the courts. The type of oversight…
What about when Russian hackers shut down American hospitals and can't be extradited? Who's going to hack back and enforce the law? The FBI can't do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, I assume the exact opposite. I'm guessing many people oppose government data collection but because they are buying data on the open market from people who "opt in", they're okay with it. I wish there was the ability to make a poll: * This is fine, privacy is dead. * This is okay because of private companies collecting and selling the data, even to the government * This is okay because the government is using…
We all committed privacy suicide when we bought smartphones. The data that we thought should be out of government hands, we put into the hands of many businesses. I agree it seems unsettling, but why can’t the government purchase information on the open market?
The most obvious answer would be that they're spending our money in a way which is contrary to our interests. If it were their own funds, and they had no powers beyond those of any other private citizen or organization, that would be one thing. But they're supposed to be acting on our behalf, in our interests rather than their own, and to many people this does not qualify.
Personally I would focus less on the fact that they've obtained this information and more on (a) the fact that this information is available on the market and (b) how they (and others) intend to use it.