Hacker News Reader

Comment by whimsicalism | Hacker News Reader

I absolutely think that the government should be able to purchase data in order to conduct investigations.

Unlike private actors, governmental actors are publicly constrained in their actions and representatives of the will of our society.

View on HN

the subpoena system, for all its failings, is that public constraint. if it can be circumvented, that constraint effectively no longer exists.

The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the government from taking actions that private actors could legally do, it compels private actors to act according to state whims.

If someone volunteers information, it is not a "circumvention" of the subpoena.

Breaking into Google and stealing information for a criminal investigation would be circumventing it.

> The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the government from taking actions that private actors could legally do

Irrelevant. Gov wants data, Gov gets a narrowly targeted warrant first. Beyond this lies 4A violations.

Can the government buy an autobiography I wrote detailing my crimes to help their investigation? Or is that a 4th amendment violation?

The Gov can acquire data that you - with full willful consent - have chosen to make publicly available. eg: public social media posts.

Can the government use my ex-wife's autobiography detailing the crimes she saw me commit in order to help investigate me?

Because search is the scope of our discussion, the answer is that the government can read your wife's book for the same reasons they can read your book.

Is one suggesting not detailing our crimes in any recorded format and making it public if we do not want said recordings to be part of a government investigation?

> Irrelevant. Gov wants data, Gov gets a narrowly targeted warrant first. Beyond this lies 4A violations.

No? What are you basing this off of?

Arizona v. Gant

Paying someone for information != warrantless search. A search involves compulsion.

> A search involves compulsion.

Exclusively? That's a novel interpretation of 4A. Where did you get it?

I get the impression that a majority of the commenters here are (somehow) not aware that there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A.

I think that's a sound assessment.

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

> 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.

No, it is more nuanced than that and depends on the nature of the information. Banks hold massive amounts of highly personal information about their customers, and this knowledge is an unavoidable consequence of the business relationship. I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.

> I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.

I don't think it is legal for banks to sell their balance information to other private entities either. But if it were, then I think it would be permissible for the government to be one of the buyers.

Your interpretation of 4A is not backed by any legal precedent.

No... Government asks nicely, and business decides whether being a known narc will kill their business prospects, then either hand over the data, or ask the Government to pretty please get a warrant so they have an excuse.

Let's be realistic here.

And it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. Now, whether the fact that the violation occurred is surfaced in court, and successfully used to exonerate a defendant, is where the problems occur.

It is not a violation. Third Party Doctrine. You waive 4th Amendment once you share something with someone else. This is the same legal phenomena that pretty much guarantees LE will get access to card based financial activity, and telephone metadata.

They'll need a warrant for a wiretap, but tracing contact graph has been open season for as long as I've been around.

>> Unlike private actors, governmental actors are publicly constrained in their actions and representatives of the will of our society.

Are you aware of the term 'unelected bureaucrat', and do you know how many of them exist? They are accountable to no one. They continually prove to be significant problems.

Even the most unelected bureaucrat in America is more representative of the will of the people than a middle manager at Facebook.

I'm more afraid of police and local prosecutors than anyone at Facebook, including Zuck himself.

My major concern with this is the accuracy of the information. I regularly put in dodgy data on registration forms where there is no financial contract. This puts me at risk of being held to that information. Because it's on the computer, it must be right.

Sounds like this is a reason why this is not a foolproof approach for the government, not a major concern for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com