People say they want privacy, but people say a lot of things they don't mean. Instead I look at their actions. No one's willing to inconvenience themselves even slightly for privacy.
Where can you buy a SIM card with cash and not have to show any ID? And for bonus points: where you will also not be recorded on CCTV doing so.
>where you will also not be recorded on CCTV doing so
This begs the question on whether you are trying to avoid automated surveillance and correlation or whether you are trying to out-do Usama bin Laden at competitive hide and seek. The more important question is: how long is that CCTV data stored for?
The context of this story is data willingly given up by users through apps or websites that people give permission to use & resell. A decade ago or more there may have been more of an excuse for consumers: awareness of just what was tracked and how it was repackaged and sold on to other entities was not as well known. Now there is little excuse: If someone installs an app and hits "agree" to the data it wants to access, or clicks "okay" to the browser popups on sites that want their location, that's on them.
Data legally (if dubiously) collected explicitly for law enforcement purposes that still require a court order to access is a completely separate issue in terms of giving up 4th amendment rights.
Not sure how that exception is being handled in the Treasury case.
The article specifically talks about apps as well, and that is a user choice. Web pages also ask for location data in popups: this can be denied to them, which limits (though only limit, not prevent) pinpoint location tracking. I never said all tracking can be prevented. I said that people give away their personal data. That is a true statement regardless of whether certain types of data are taken without their consent.
I think we're probably (mostly, or at least partly) on the same page here. But if you want to continue a discussion that's fine, but only if you review HN community guidelines on discourse and civility beforehand. Also not that I often go days without revisiting threads to see if further conversation on a topic would interest me, but I'll try to make a trip back to this one to check in.
The easy way out would be to make such information not suitable as evidence. Perhaps exceptions will be made for cases when there's a clear risk to public safety. (such as prosecuting al capone)
Slavery itself is also somewhat of a special case because entering into a contract requires the ability for each party to seek redress or other appropriate methods of enforcement. But once a slave, all personal agency is lost and therefore the enslaved party is no longer on equal grounds with respect to having the contract honored. It is an inherently paradoxical contract.
Contrast this with selling your right to free speech with an NDA: you still have access to all the methods of enforcement and redress if disagreements about the terms arise while the contract is in effect.
I’m all for the 4th. But restraining law enforcement not to use public data?
Now should it be so easy to give up your rights to your data is a different question.
Legally, this is false, but obviously most people here would advocate for data ownership and control, even when it's transferred under a contract (regardless if it's via a checkbox, or signed and notarized).