51–60 of 117 posts
Does anyone think this just applies to migrants and ICE agents? We are already moving into a minority report style future … or maybe better said we are racing towards it now.
California residents, here's the data deletion form: https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request#california
Thanks for this. Sadly, but not surprisingly, it is broken with the following error: "A system error has occurred and we are not able to process your request. Please try again later."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government hasn't searched nor seized anything. This is identical to if somebody found out your favorite color is Blue, gave that info to a newspaper reporter, and the newspaper sold the information on the street for a nickle a paper. The government bought one of the papers.
I'm not sure how you equate agencies like the FBI and CIA with newspapers. Seems like a really weak argument from here. One is a commercial venture with zero license to kill or interfere with foreign political processes.
It's pretty crazy that our legislators and courts haven't addressed this loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to buy data that they can't legally collect. This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment.
> This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment. Courts seem to think that this information does not have an expectation of privacy since the user gave it away.
It's pretty crazy that our legislators and courts haven't addressed this loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to buy data that they can't legally collect. This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment.
California residents, here's the data deletion form: https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request#california
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it have access to sealed court records? I thought the whole point of "sealed" meant that the contents of the case were off-limits to the public for any and all reasons
All they had to do was scrape public records before they were sealed or expunged. When a record is sealed or expunged, that only means the court stops publishing it or deletes their record. Anyone who retrieved it before that doesn't have to give it back and nobody's memory gets wiped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment. Courts seem to think that this information does not have an expectation of privacy since the user gave it away.
I don’t like the government being able to do this, but common sense seems to dictate that in cases where the user has freely given out their information and where a private citizen can go buy that information, the government should be able to buy it.
How often have people freely given their information? I'd argue that if you have to give out information in order to live, that doesn't count as freely giving it. That's being compelled to give it.
In US society, it's literally impossible to live without giving your information to a variety of entities.
California residents, here's the data deletion form: https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request#california
Is there any downsides to deleting or opting out? Eg if you opt out of credit agencies then you have trouble getting credit cards and loans.
It's pretty crazy that our legislators and courts haven't addressed this loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to buy data that they can't legally collect. This essentially nullifies the fourth amendment.
How tempting would it be to use blackmail to influence a democratic election. Given this national security blackmail apparatus exists how can we be sure this insidious rootkit hasn’t already been deployed? Epstein was able to have bill gates in his back pocket due to knowing about his affair. Imagine having access to that kind of leverage on every reporter journalist activist politician etc. I can’t be sure the integ…
It isn't. Our politicians are pretty much corporate puppets, fully "owned and operated" by our corporate overlords.