Declassified report reveals that the US government is buying troves of data about its citizens (web.archive.org)

submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/news@beehaw.org

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Perhaps most controversially, the report states that the government believes it can “persistently” track the phones of “millions of Americans” without a warrant, so long as it pays for the information, a newly declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, reveals. Were the government to simply demand access to a device's location instead, it would be considered a Fourth Amendment “search” and would require a judge's sign-off. But because companies are willing to sell the information—not only to the US government but to other companies as well—the government considers it “publicly available” and therefore asserts that it “can purchase it.”

Here' tge report (pdf): https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Declassified-Report-on-CAI-January2022.pdf

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TooLazyDidntName@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Well its way easier for them to buy the data they want than to get a warrant for it. Honestly, I dont think the government doing this is nearly as big of an issue as the fact that this data is available for purchase in the first place.

[-] 0x815@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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?

[-] TooLazyDidntName@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] tristero@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023

91 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22056 readers

106 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