111–117 of 117 posts
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.
Yes, it does. Hopefully, this practice will be made illegal in the absence of a search warrant.
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.
It’s not really a loophole. It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Nothing “sneaky” about it, just the case law hasn’t caught up to the amount and quality of privately-held data. More entities should be subject to the telco exception to 3rd Party Doctrine.
Doesn't mean it's not a loophole. The law is filled with loopholes that aren't sneaky at all.
This is a loophole around the fourth amendment, and it allows law enforcement to violate people's constitutional rights without consequence.
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.
Is that because the user signed it away in the terms and conditions?
I have a constitutional protection against the government searching my stuff without a warrant. However, the constitution only restricts governmental actions, not the actions of citizens or other private entities.
So, the government can't search my records without a warrant -- but if a private entity has any data on me whatsoever, there's no prohibition on that entity providing it, and law enforcement can ask (as opposed to demand) anything they want, just like any of us can. All they do is ask that party for the data and if that party wants to, they can provide it.
You don't have to agree to this in any contract, T&C, or anything of the like. Private entities have the right to do anything they like with data (or property) they legally control by default.
You'd have to have a contract with them that explicitly prohibits them from sharing. In other words, it's opt-out, not opt-in.
Legally, it's no different than cops knocking on your neighbors doors and asking them if they've seen you doing sketchy things. The neighbors don't have to comply with the request, but most will.
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.
That’s the beauty of the current situation. Instead of government it’s private businesses that are building a surveillance machine of unprecedented scale. The Nazis or Stalin would have loved to have such infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not really a loophole. It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Nothing “sneaky” about it, just the case law hasn’t caught up to the amount and quality of privately-held data. More entities should be subject to the telco exception to 3rd Party Doctrine.
> It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Doesn't mean it's not a loophole. The law is filled with loopholes that aren't sneaky at all. This is a loophole around the fourth amendment, and it allows law enforcement to violate people's constitutional rights without consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed again. Doesn't mean it's not a loophole. The law is filled with loopholes that aren't sneaky at all. This is a loophole around the fourth amendment, and it allows law enforcement to violate people's constitutional rights without consequence.
Constitutional rights are defined in large part by case law. It’s incoherent to say that SCOTUS’s rulings are violating people’s Constitutional rights.