It is an unconstitutional practice. If they didn’t think it was they wouldn’t go through the extra steps to get the data. Outsourcing one part of the illegal enterprise doesn’t make the whole thing legal.
But if they want to play this game, an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.
Good luck with that. You cannot delete something which "doesn't exists". /s
The second piece about comparing the government to a business isn't valid. There exist many laws and rules that apply only to the government.
Not that I agree with the distinction. I think companies larger than the US government at formation should probably have rules to keep them good for humanity.
Realistically, scraping people for their data like this should just not be allowed at all. People are more important than corporations.
Can state law compel a federal agency to do anything?
Within the jurisdiction of a state, probably. States rights should have precedent over federal except in cases that involve interstate activity. This is being tested in Texas right now with various firearm laws that are meant for items made in and staying within Texas.
Positions like this really aren't helpful because they detract from existing discussions on ways to mitigate data loss. The information a DMV sells isn't behavioral data.
We should just accept the status quo. We should not fight for privacy aby more. We should accept global surveillance without a fight.
No. We van do something. We van limit our data. It may be futile, but I cannot leave things be like that.
This is reality.
I'm far from the first person to recommend this.
I sure hope you have a big war chest for litigation.
GDPR is a disaster but the intent was good. Here in America we just say go for it.
What do you mean? Care to elaborate on the network (I think I know what you mean about authenticated, but I need to be sure where for).
Obviously, the intelligence agencies are thwarting the spirit of the law requiring warrants by buying data hoovered up by big data.
But I was always told growing up not to share things on the internet I don't want everyone to know. I feel like you kind of deserve having your data hoovered up by the government if you share that data publicly on social media, but personal responsibility doesn't appear to be a contributing factor in this discussion for some reason.
That's not the only source of data, obviously, but there are a lot of people on HN who think blocking ads is piracy. To those people, I present this exact problem, because they should have seen it coming. Adtech is amoral and unethical, and ways of life that rely upon it should collapse. No mercy, I don't care, find a better business model or live on the street.
Let's be glad then, that policy is not based on your feelings. You had the privilege of education, that doesn't mean those still ignorant deserve the abuse.
ALL data collection should be restored to its natural state of OptIn, no matter what zuck or any other silicon valley bro says.
It's unreasonable to expect every citizen to understand when and where their data is being taken.
It's unreasonable to expect people to understand what actions lead to what data points.
It's unreasonable to assess data for unrelated traits that don't match every person perfectly.
It's unreasonable to trust a company selling data to not at some point include illegal data. Certainly not without a verified chain of custody.
It is unreasonable for the government to bypass the constitution by using limited interpretation of language.
If the data is already commercially available, why not access it.
If you want to fight this, regulate the commercial collection and sale of this data.
It’s not just which data or where they get it (though surely many types and sources of data should be restricted too, especially without a warrant) but the fact that they are building a profile, targeting, etc. at all. These are things the government/law enforcement should not be doing lightly or without supervision.
We have an agency beholden to no-one with the power to blackmail any journalist, lawyer, politician, associate, etc.
We have an agency that seems to take pride in "hacking" the constitution. We've been shown glimpses and glimmers of clever mechanisms to run-around the US Constitution.
Go ahead and use a VPN and lock down your stupid android OS. You fail to grasp the breadth and depth of sources for harvesting "public" intel.
If you want to be a founder and have no moral code there's ample opportunity here. IoT and connectivity make it cheaper than ever to generate intel on people. Fingerprint people's voices in public, travel patterns, associations, bluetooth/wifi device ids, home wifi attributes, etc. Who's the customer? Big Brother.. Spy on your fellow Americans to help combat Terrorism.
Tin foil hat on: It might be too late for any of this to be meaningfully reformed. The people-in-charge already have enough blackmail on politicians they can drown out dissent. If there is any reform, the info gained from illegitimate sources is already stored as weights into a neural model for future use. Creating the neural model would be "constitutional" because the models aren't "searched" lol
Our national security apparatus is running on self-signed certs. Hope nothing goes wrong with that!
They're beholden to congress. No US entity is beholden to no-one
If an entity can forever dismiss Congressional inquiry through unlimited open-ended legalistic escapes that are virtually always applicable, then it is de facto above Congress. This also exists, and is different than the first example.
Congress is a feckless body of government when it comes to checks and balances.
I’m comfortable saying that US intel agencies are rouge and beholden to no one and no laws.
I guess it would be nice if congress held the executive in check.. but maybe they can't bc of sinister reasons >:D
Wasn't there a report recently of the FBI illegally searching US Senators?? Something really wacky is going on.
