Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 386 posts

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#361

Post by user3939382 »

vel0city wrote: post #356
user3939382 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think forum posts require citations, especially when they're correct. This isn't a peer-reviewed paper, it's a forum comment.

> especially when they're correct But that's the thing, its not correct. You stated the EFF has accepted millions from Facebook and Google, as in multiple millions of dollars. $478k is significantly less than multiple millions. Its over a million dollars away from being correct.

I didn’t specify a time frame or the specific companies. I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true.

The larger point is also unequivocally proved: the EFF has massive conflicts of interest that it apparently thinks are fine, which makes it untrustworthy. If they accepted $100,000 from Google that would be just as much of a problem — it’s a huge amount of money. Extrapolating out from the sample data that’s easy to find, it does look like millions. If you want to conduct some in-depth research to prove that wrong please do, I’d be interested to see a full qualification for their horrible conflict of interest.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#362

Post by aspenmayer »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #353
aspenmayer wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to build credit with a secured credit card and on a minimum wage. Decide which bills you have to pay late this pay period. After years of this, you’ll be lucky if you can convert to an unsecured credit card, let alone maintain your (low) credit score, let alone improve it. Most folks in US can’t even afford a $400 emergency expense. Good luck doing even that when your credit is maxed out and your car breaks down…

Why would I work for years at minimum wage? That doesn't seem like a good aim. >> Most folks in US can’t even afford a $400 emergency expense. It looks like they can, and fortunately the number of people in poverty continues to decline: https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/average-american...

Seems like you’re not able to empathize with others. Way to completely miss the point.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#363

Post by whimsicalism »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #327
whimsicalism wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. As it stands now, the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion.

> I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. There are tons of case law that have interpreted 4A out to it's currently upheld boundaries - boundaries that aren't well represented by the original wording. > the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion. You…

> You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it.

Because that is where the current boundaries are at? That is the DHS/DOJs interpretation of 4A, and so far there has not been any successful court challenge of it.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#364

Post by vel0city »

user3939382 wrote: post #361
vel0city wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially when they're correct But that's the thing, its not correct. You stated the EFF has accepted millions from Facebook and Google, as in multiple millions of dollars. $478k is significantly less than multiple millions. Its over a million dollars away from being correct.

I didn’t specify a time frame or the specific companies. I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true. The larger point is also unequivocally proved: the EFF has massive conflicts of interest that it apparently thinks are fine, which makes it untrustworthy. If they accepted $100,000 from Google that would be just as much of a problem — it’s a huge amount of money. Extrapolating out from the sample data that…

> I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true.

Have you? You've provided evidence for less than half a million, yet you claim its at least $2M.

I do agree IMO they really shouldn't accept much money but you're claiming you've shared proof they've received multiple millions and yet you've only shared proof for less than half of that.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#365

Post by nobody9999 »

landemva wrote: post #330
nobody9999 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go farther than that and say that such data shouldn't be collected in the first place.

There is a solution - individually act in a way to limit what is collected. Take charge of the tracking devices you own, and of your spend. For extra credit, seed with bad data or misdirection. Statistically zero people make any effort, other than maybe saying the government should limit government data mining. Here is an idea, turn off mobile phone location tracking this weekend.

>Statistically zero people make any effort, other than maybe saying the government should limit government data mining. Here is an idea, turn off mobile phone location tracking this weekend.

What, exactly, do you mean by "mobile phone location tracking"?

Your phone provider needs to be able to locate your device to provide voice and data services. You'd need to remove your battery to disable that "phone location tracking." In which case, it's just a lump of glass and plastic. Which might make a good paperweight.

As for "location services" and GPS, I never turn those on.

As I said, the data shouldn't be collected -- at all. That's a regulatory issue, not a technical one.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#366

Post by gmadsen »

Jarwain wrote: post #153
gmadsen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I think the barrier is that if people getting canceled impacts their credit score, or if their credit directly impacts their ability to travel or get a job, there'd be a lot of social unrest. Especially in a country where people's perception and politics plays a huge role in the functioning of the government

I'd argue that it doesn't play that big of a role in the functioning of the government. Privacy abuse has been pretty non-partisan for decades. As Chomsky would say, the areas of intersection between the parties represent the institutional power outside the democratic process. For example, the American people do not have a choice in how to treat Snowden, he has been deemed a treasonous criminal of the state, regardless of actual public opinion on the issue

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#367

Post by varenc »

judge2020 wrote: post #310
varenc wrote: post #285

Babel Street, the firm selling data to the IRS, seems to say they don't have to follow the California CCPA requirements around data access or data deletion. Their only mention of CCPA is obtuse but implies it's their customers' responsibility: https://www.babelstreet.com/privacy-policy My understanding was that if a company has my personal data and is selling it, the CCPA requires that they allow me to put in a reque…

CCPA calls these companies data brokers[0], which are still subject to the CCPA. They might be acting facetious in saying that, since you'd usually have to also go to their customers to get your data deleted in addition to asking them for deletion [as in, they don't have to inform their customers to delete the data]. > Data brokers are subject to the CCPA. On the Data Broker Registry website, you will find contact in…

Was genuinely curious. Thanks for the info. Of course Babel Street isn’t listed in the official CCPA Data Broker registry: https://oag.ca.gov/data-brokers

So by not allowing me to access and delete my data on Babel Street, it seems like they are in violation of the CCPA? What’s my recourse?

Anyone interested in privacy who can claim California residency should be interested too!

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#368

Post by austincheney »

jkhdigital wrote: post #342
austincheney wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media is not the third party once you surrender your data to them. You, the user/product, become the third party in any forthcoming transactions. The only legal challenge therein are details related to exposure of bulk PII which remain protected without regard for the fourth amendment by other laws. This has been the case for decades. I remember before the internet publishers selling their users subscription a…

I’m confused. Aren’t we talking about the 4th amendment here? The implied “right to privacy” is only in relation to the government . To me, this means there is a categorical difference between random third parties buying data about you, and the government buying data about you.

No. The fourth amendment does not apply here. In US legal doctrine there is no right to privacy. The fourth amendment exists to provide a right against improper search and seizure.

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#369

Post by dang »

derekjdanserl wrote: post #42
Cycl0ps wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re

[flagged]

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

There are two reasons why we have this guideline:

(1) Supercilious putdowns of other people on the internet are among the lowest quality type of comment; and

(2) Grandiose generalizations about the community are nearly always just the result of a few (or maybe just one) data points that the speaker didn't like. They're nearly all bogus, which is why people with opposite likes and dislikes express exactly the opposite general conclusions. Again, this is among the lowest quality type of comment.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people

#370

Post by user3939382 »

vel0city wrote: post #364
user3939382 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t specify a time frame or the specific companies. I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true. The larger point is also unequivocally proved: the EFF has massive conflicts of interest that it apparently thinks are fine, which makes it untrustworthy. If they accepted $100,000 from Google that would be just as much of a problem — it’s a huge amount of money. Extrapolating out from the sample data that…

> I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true. Have you? You've provided evidence for less than half a million, yet you claim its at least $2M. I do agree IMO they really shouldn't accept much money but you're claiming you've shared proof they've received multiple millions and yet you've only shared proof for less than half of that.

Yes, that amount in that time frame and from only those companies extrapolates out to millions over a larger time frame and with any companies in that category. Again, if anyone is really concerned they’re free to conduct detailed research. I feel extrapolating is reasonable enough to make a forum comment.
Post reply on HN