91
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22056 readers
108 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's what I thought, too. If the police needs a judge's sign-off as collecting such data without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment, why then are private companies allowed to do so? I'm not a lawyer, but this is strange to me. As a legal layman I would say that private companies and data brokers are violating the law, right?
Im also a legal layman, but my understanding is that the 4th amendment protects you from this kind of data collection from the government, not from corporations. Shouldn't be that way IMO though
Yeah, it's the independent source exemption to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, basically. The original data collection wasn't illegal, as it was collected by a third party rather than the government, and so is admissable.
Read the report, it covers the legal basis they are using and why warrant protections don’t apply. The “publicly available information can’t be sensitive personal information” justification has basically allowed them to buy what would otherwise require actual warrant processes.
I think they read the report; they're saying that corporations shouldn't be able to sell that information in the first place, to anyone. The government can't use the "it's publicly available information" excuse if nobody else can legally collect it to sell it to the gov and other corpertions. (Aka, they can't "make it publicly available.")
People are arguing that if it's illegal for the gov to collect the info directly, it should also be illegal for a corporation to collect and/or sell that info directly, thus closing the loophole.
The companies aren't seizing our info though. We're giving it them.
That said, this does need to be addressed because they only way to not do that right now is to simply miss out, and there's no reason it has to be the case.
Yes, privacy should be an 'unwaivable right'. I'm not sure whether this is the correct legal term, but it should indispensible like basic human rights.
I'm not a lawyer either, but from my understanding, this relates to third party doctrine. Since we willingly provide this information to a third party, we therefore have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
It is long past time that the United States passed laws to address these deficiencies. If our intelligence services are buying this data, you can be certain foreign governments and their intelligence services are doing the same.
We should spend less time focusing on Tik Tok bans and more time addressing the root cause of the issue.