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.
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.
Courts seem to think that this information does not have an expectation of privacy since the user gave it away.
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.
I acknowledge there are cases where it’s effectively impossible in modern society, such as with giving out your info to get a cell phone, but believe by verbiage “freely giving out information” accounts for this.
I setup a camera recording everything you do in your lawn and document when leave and come back to your house. I bundle this up with everyone else's information and sell this to the government.
Where was your "freely giving information out at".
You quickly turn into "even going outside removes any privacy I have and the government can pretty much track everything I do".
Also, going to those stores will gladly track you with cameras too. You're left farming weeds in the mountains to get away from this.
> I acknowledge there are cases where it’s effectively impossible in modern society, such as with giving out your info to get a cell phone
Or if you pay rent, own real estate or a car, buy anything using a method other than cash, have electrical or other utility service, etc.
You are forced to give out your information for almost everything you need in order to live in modern society.
Within simple interaction I agree, but disagree when it comes to aggregate data. Maybe I tell Amazon some info, Wayfair different info, and Vitacost something else. A 3rd party can aggregate that into a new superset that I didn't give anyone explicitly. This goes well-beyond in-store surveillance and expands potentially and in-reality to full-time surveillance: when your smart thermostat senses you are home, when your car is moving, etc.
Then ask them if they expected that data to be private.
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.
https://emailserverprovider.com/emails-texts-documents-older...
[1] https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2010/12/17/court-finds-fou...
That said, it’s not a loophole. State and federal laws make certain data public or quasi-public for limited purposes, and I can’t think of any reason the government should be prohibited from buying it for one of those purposes. The fourth amendment is designed to prevent the government from collecting information that is distinguished as categorically private by definition.
What do you mean?
Seems like a really weak argument from here.
One is a commercial venture with zero license to kill or interfere with foreign political processes.
Not a great analogy really.
If LN allowed it, the general public could afford to run as much as they like.
Yes, it does. Hopefully, this practice will be made illegal in the absence of a search warrant.
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 integrity of our democracy is even still intact
It isn't. Our politicians are pretty much corporate puppets, fully "owned and operated" by our corporate overlords.