51–60 of 104 posts
> NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says I really hate to take NSA part on this, but, if the data is available on the open market, why would they need a warrant. The problem is not that NSA buy it (they have access to it anyway, through other means) the problem is that everyone can buy it.
Can anyone explain why people choose to use internet providers that sell their data? Do they get internet for free?
I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…
The bigger issue that people always miss is that NSA is not law enforcement so they do not need a warrant. The Census Bureau does not need a warrant to gather information on Americans either, but for some weird reason people find the NSA controversial but not the census.
I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…
I think this gets down to a fundamental problem with tech that society is ignoring like a pink elephant in the room. Society fundamentally changed with the introduction of computers. Things have become possible that were never possible before. This is obvious if you consider the tech of 1900, 1950, and today. The elephant in the room is that the more complete the dataset the more dangerous it is. Its like gunpowder.…
> NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says I really hate to take NSA part on this, but, if the data is available on the open market, why would they need a warrant. The problem is not that NSA buy it (they have access to it anyway, through other means) the problem is that everyone can buy it.
The concept of a warrant is to have an authorization to do something that an entity would normally not be allowed to do. So if the NSA would normally not be allowed to have some bit of information, then it doesn't matter where that information is, how it is acquired or how 'available' it is.
Of course, that's all up to interpretation because the various documents/amendments etc. are all made up in legalese that relies on precedent and opinion to make some sort of sense of what's actually allowed. So in the case of the NSA they would make the same argument you are making: the NSA didn't "get" the information so therefore they don't need to be authorised to "have" it. But the issue is that "getting" something and "having" something isn't the same thing.
Realistically, the problem is exactly as you describe it, you can't really protect people if you're allowing random parties to just collect data on everyone with no consent or legal base for processing. Because even if the NSA needs a warrant, you can just proxy that too where you don't even buy the data, you just buy 'search results' and offload the entire data mining process. Now the NSA doesn't acquire the data nor hold it, it just gets results. And then we'd all get a discussion about that, and they could just proxy that too (have some other entity to collection and investigation etc. and just relay results as anonymous tips to the NSA). It never seems to end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should consider reading the article.
I've read the article, and it addresses the point vaguely at best: "The standard argument in favor of unfettered government purchases of private data is that such data is commercially available, and so anyone should be able to purchase it, including government officers." Agreed. "... while government officials can generally purchase items available to the public without constitutional restriction, sensitive private d…
Because it’s “on the market” it’s deemed “public”, but that market only is open to governments.
> NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says I really hate to take NSA part on this, but, if the data is available on the open market, why would they need a warrant. The problem is not that NSA buy it (they have access to it anyway, through other means) the problem is that everyone can buy it.
Think of it this way: knives are available on the open market, that doesn't mean NSA can just go around stabbing people. The concept of a warrant is to have an authorization to do something that an entity would normally not be allowed to do. So if the NSA would normally not be allowed to have some bit of information, then it doesn't matter where that information is, how it is acquired or how 'available' it is. Of cou…
but the nsa can go around and buy knifes
It seems like the problem is that the information is for sale at all. I generally think warrants should be needed when police (or i guess spies) do something that an ordinary citizen wouldn't be allowed to do. If the info is available for purchase by anyone, then i don't think warrants should be needed.
as in, pii should be a massive liability and everyone should be incentivized to avoid collecting it
Can anyone explain why people choose to use internet providers that sell their data? Do they get internet for free?