Hacker News Reader

Comment by austin-cheney | Hacker News Reader

That’s not completely correct. The CIA has the least reason to access this data as they are only charted for intelligence collection outside the US. The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases.

The NSA is chartered to collect data on communications entering and leaving the US. Decades ago that was completely unambiguous but less so now. Their collection of data on Americans is not illegal depending upon what they do with it. That was the most revealing part of the Snowden releases: insider threats misusing NSA data collected on Americans for personal use.

View on HN

> The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases.

This is just plain false. It is a long-held idea in American jurisprudence that information given to law enforcement by third parties can be used so long as that information was not collected under the direction of the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

In this case the information is not provided to the government. It is purchased. The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.

> The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.

Why would buying information you have no right to privacy for require a warrant? Police do not need warrants for generally publicly available information, and if anyone can buy this information why not police? Similar to how police do not require a warrant when they ask a phone company for records and the company just gives it to them without question.

If police ask you to search your house, you could let them or you could tell them to come back with a warrant but if you let them they can use what they find.

We need to change the legal premise that entities have the right to give up data they've collected on people without the express informed consent of those people, no matter who those entities want to give that data to.

People are consenting to this, that’s the issue. We need to change data privacy laws in general, the government buying it isn’t the real problem here it’s that it is for sale at all.

> People are consenting to this, that’s the issue.

I don't think they are, by and large. At least, not "consent" in any meaningful sense.

That is an irrelevant argument. With regard to the fourth amendment all that matters is whether the government is using that information to harm or detain somebody. It does not matter how much value you place upon that information or whether anybody should have it or not.

NSA are not law enforcement, so comparing the NSA to law enforcement results in absurd conclusions.

No this doesn’t matter, they aren’t forcing these companies to collect data they are buying data these companies collect as their business model and thus it is completely legal.

They who?

It is perfectly valid for the NSA to buy that data, because the NSA cannot use that data in a way that violates the fourth amendment without breaking other laws.

If the FBI buys that data they need to have probable cause prior to that purchase else all the purchased information and everything resulting from that information cannot be used to prosecute cases. The reason is because defendants have a legally established expectation of privacy on certain electronic communications such as email.

I think many people would take issue with the claim that most information is given voluntarily. How many people even know that their car connects to cell towers, which allows for location tracking, let alone who actually volunteered for it?

They accepted the EULA, so they know! /s

It's voluntary under the letter of the law, which is the context the parent post is using.

I think we both agree that the law needs to change.

>How many people even know that their car connects to cell towers, which allows for location tracking, let alone who actually volunteered for it?

The bigger problem is that cars are required by law to have unique identifiers prominently displayed (ie. license plates), so you had very little expectation of privacy to begin with. Even if your car wasn't connecting to cell towers, a network of license plate readers can figure out your location, and it's unclear why consent would be needed in that case.

That's the whole premise of automation and drag net though, no? Sure, it is absolutely legal for a private investigator to park their car outside my home and follow me as soon as I leave and go anywhere in public. They can write down this information and keep logs. However, should it be legal to automate this for everyone?

I'm not asking whether it is legal but rather should it be.

> The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Good faith discovery requires that the receiving party was ignorant of the malicious behavior of the collecting party, thus suggesting the receiving party formed a warrant in good faith. A good defense attorney would get that tossed. The primary legal theory to bypass an improper collection is inevitable discovery which does not apply here.

The Snowden leaks came out on 2013, it has been known since then that data collected in this manner is used against US citizens in the manner I described in the above comment despite your assertions to the contrary.

It’s time for a check on reading.

* Your prior comment never described any malicious depth of data collection.

* I never said anything to the contrary.

* Data collected upon individuals is not the same as data collected against individuals as the later provides intent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com