I don’t really understand why it’s so much more controversial that agencies are buying commercially available data than that the data is being collected and made available to anyone that will pay in the first place.
well, first, companies having this information is inherently not ok to the average person
Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with
Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules.
Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison).
I sincerely disagree. The average person doesn't care. They should, but they absolutely do not. Don't fall into the hn-bubble trap.
> Second, agencies are purchasing this information with taxpayer money. So we're feeding a market that we may not agree with
If I had a nickel for everything the government did with my money that I disagree with I could quit my day job.
> Third, government agencies have rules, and when these agencies skirt around the rules or find loopholes, it has a negative effect on that agency. Generally, a population wants their government to have a good reputation and agents of the government are following the rules.
Generally, a population just wants to be "fat and happy" and secure. You're falling into the HN bubble trap again.
> Fourth, and I think this may be the most important: government agencies have the authority and power to do things private companies cannot. government agencies can launch investigations, get legal advice from prosecutors, indite, get warrants, supena, arrest, detain, etc. All are invasive, expensive, and may result in a range of bad things (from paying lawyer costs all the way up to prison).
Sure. Otherwise what's the point?
I don't know what the legality of the NSA buying private data is, but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens.
How is this relevant when the government is purchasing the data on the open market?
>but it feels like it violates the spirit of the law that says they shouldn't be spying on their citizens.
No, the spirit of the law is that the government can't use its monopoly on violence to gather evidence.
But that's not what was discussed. The comment I replied to was talking about "the spirit of the law", which is separate from what the law ought be today.
I don't think this is true. These guys are still around[0] even after garnering their bad reputation.
Another way to put it...the government is the only entity in society with a monopoly on the use of force. With great power there should also be a great degree of responsibility.
> no judge, jury or trial
> try to live in America
I'd argue corporations persecute people far more often than the government does. e.g. when credit bureaus find out you have cancer your credit score drops at least 100pts.
Government has been evicting people as collective punishment for crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FMZFwnBCbU
Not to mention the government is the one licensing the banks to create money through fractional reserves/the reserve ratio. That's why you're on an inflation treadmill where assets are constantly inflating in price to the point where you need a loan to make big purchases.
source?
I disagree with this assessment. I think it's the other way around -- corporations are held much less accountable than the government.
But neither are being good actors here.
> CONCEALING A TIP
> One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.
Sure. Easy to object to something secret, which has a carefully crafted cover story. My defense attorney is psychic too. /s
The government can do anything that is legal.
I people believe purchasing data is a violation of the 4th amendment and it may not yet be illegal but it should be.
That's true, but the federal government has a limited number of things it can do, as specified in our memorandum of understanding between the people of the united states and the federal government. That ought to be the framing under which all federal actions are seen.
To put it another way, for individuals, unless something is illegal, you are entitled to do it. Whereas for the federal government, everything is illegal except that which was made legal.
Personally, I think that if data brokers have it then it is essentially public information. What makes the public information from data brokers different from other public information like your address?
That would be a bit creepy but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if NSA had the data to build this capability. Money seems like a decent but exploitable way to keep all this data from being stitched together privately
But I do agree with your premise: it's a travesty that this data is collected and made commercially available without informed consent in the first place.
Your household size and firearm preferences data can tell a rapist how easy of a target you will be.
Your genetic information can be used by insurance companies to secretly deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, even though this is illegal.
Your genetic information could also cause you to be targeted by racists.
Your sexual preferences could be used against you as blackmail if the government or cultural moment shifts away from tolerance and they become unacceptable.
Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping.
I know a lot of these sound crazy, but consider this: the fact that they sound so crazy would itself make you sound less believable to others if anyone ever did victimize you any of these ways, furthering their odds of being able to perform that successfully without repercussions.
> Your "anonymized" cell phone GPS data can be used pretty easily to determine when you're not home for purposes of burglary.
Please - PLEASE - find me ONE example of a home burglary occuring under these circumstances.
> Your purchasing habits could cause you to become a prime suspect for a terrorist who used those same items in your area for a recent attack, like if your wife was buying a pressure cooker while you were buying backpacks for your kids doing back to school shopping.
This is just beyond nuts. Stop watching so much television, it's not good for your mental health.
Likely not possible. By definition, these would be successful burglaries that happened when owner was not home and perpetrator was likely never caught.
Remember, the close rate on burglaries in the US is in the low teens - 13% as of 2022[1], and by definition, these were the dumb perpetrators that got caught - the 13% least competent||lucky of all home burglars.
Buying a pressure cooker and a backpack causing you to be suspected of terrorism is nuts?
Oh, you sweet, sweet, naïve summer child. This isn't fiction, it's a story from real life that's happened many times. A cursory search engine query shows numerous examples of this, e.g. this one[2] that happened over a decade ago!
I can't force you to be rationally worried about entirely plausible risks, just keep in mind that your irrational lack of concern for such possibilities only puts yourself at risk.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess you're politically likely to be progressive/left wing. Do you know that's empirically correlated[3] with having less mass in your amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for evaluating threats and risks?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-r...
[2] https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/08/01/pressure-cooker-and-b...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-...
Several personal insults and as for evidence, a single "Long Island woman claims" allegation from ten years ago. Plus a political derangement twist - how exciting!
It is fascinating how insecure a person like you is capable of being degraded to by the same systems you so vehemently decry. It's analogous to being afraid of everyone on the street because they might have a black belt in martial arts.
>> "Just Pretend"-privacy
>> Or so I can tell myself.
I am perfectly aware of every fact you noted. Repeating those facts on HN educates no one, and does nothing whatever to address the question in the prior comment.
That's not it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to set up a government with constraints and a culture of respect for the citizenry. It isn't about trust or no trust in 'government', because government is made up of individuals, and individuals have all kinds of motivations. I generally trust the government, but I am aware that any specific policy or decision can be a corrupt action for the benefit of some individual within the beurocracy.