Unfortunately, this isn't really the Fed's buying their way around the 4th amendment as the article states: it's people selling away their 4th amendment rights by giving their personal data & right to resell it to companies that will sell to anyone with the cash to buy it.
As I understand it, that's not quite true. I can't get a phone provider that won't pen register my data off. It's not an option and it's entirely not practical to conduct life without a phone of some kind.
People say they want privacy, but people say a lot of things they don't mean. Instead I look at their actions. No one's willing to inconvenience themselves even slightly for privacy.
Try it at your local store, and if they ask, tell them that you don't have an ID card because your wallet got stolen last week. Be a little adventurous.
>where you will also not be recorded on CCTV doing so
This begs the question on whether you are trying to avoid automated surveillance and correlation or whether you are trying to out-do Usama bin Laden at competitive hide and seek. The more important question is: how long is that CCTV data stored for?
I just spent the last couple days on a business trip, trying to do dev work while mobile and even though I have all the latest, common tech it's still death by a thousand cuts. If I'd be doing this kind of thing with obscure distros and hardware I'd probably not have even slept last night. When in a pinch, it really does not seem realistic at all. I don't understand how you guys do it.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to want greater privacy in off-the-shelf products they buy. People shouldn't have to resort to buying SIM cards with cash (???) to preserve their privacy.
You can purchase with a debit card to preserve your privacy if you'd like if your debit card is held by an institution that values that sort of thing. But the point of buying SIM cards with cash is to be sure nobody, not even Visa/Mastercard or your bank can tie it back to you. There's a difference between data privacy and having a phone number that isn't linked to your person (besides if someone manually reviews CCTV footage), the OP is advocating for the latter.
Yes, exactly. There are differences between confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity. It's a Venn diagram. Using effective crypto and self-hosted services gets you confidentiality of your data, but not necessarily anonymity if your hardware, accounts, and payments are tied to your name.
It is true when you're trying to mix pen register data into this. That is a completely different class of data that no law enforcement agency has to pay for or contract with an outside company to access, mixing apples & oranges from what the Treasury is purchasing.
The context of this story is data willingly given up by users through apps or websites that people give permission to use & resell. A decade ago or more there may have been more of an excuse for consumers: awareness of just what was tracked and how it was repackaged and sold on to other entities was not as well known. Now there is little excuse: If someone installs an app and hits "agree" to the data it wants to access, or clicks "okay" to the browser popups on sites that want their location, that's on them.
Data legally (if dubiously) collected explicitly for law enforcement purposes that still require a court order to access is a completely separate issue in terms of giving up 4th amendment rights.
Telco data is actually specifically protected specifically for this reason. It’s immune from third party doctrine, which is the whole, “the govt can ask someone else who has your data for it.”
Not sure how that exception is being handled in the Treasury case.
I didn't give anyone shit. Don't accuse me (or anyone else) of that. This is advertising tracking data that normal people can't avoid generating. Ever had a product advertisement follow you around the web? That's the kind of data we're talking about here. I aggressively block, limit and quash everything like this (to the point of things often not working on my networks and devices) and I still generate massive amounts of data that I would prefer not be used to target me for anything. Blaming the user for this arguably illegal abuse of their data is irresponsible and borders on malicious blame shifting.
You're point would have been better made without the confrontational tone and upfront profanity.
The article specifically talks about apps as well, and that is a user choice. Web pages also ask for location data in popups: this can be denied to them, which limits (though only limit, not prevent) pinpoint location tracking. I never said all tracking can be prevented. I said that people give away their personal data. That is a true statement regardless of whether certain types of data are taken without their consent.
I think we're probably (mostly, or at least partly) on the same page here. But if you want to continue a discussion that's fine, but only if you review HN community guidelines on discourse and civility beforehand. Also not that I often go days without revisiting threads to see if further conversation on a topic would interest me, but I'll try to make a trip back to this one to check in.
I don't think much of the constitution but surely this goes against the spirit of the 4th amendment. It kind of defeats the whole purpose. The sale seems to be conducted under duress. Also, the way you frame it sounds wrong. You wouldn't expect it to be legally binding for someone to sell his constitutional right not to be made a slave, for (an extreme) example.
The easy way out would be to make such information not suitable as evidence. Perhaps exceptions will be made for cases when there's a clear risk to public safety. (such as prosecuting al capone)
People do have, in certain situations, the ability to sell their constitutional rights. You sell your right to free speech when you sign an NDA. You can't sell yourself into slavery because slavery itself is illegal.
Slavery itself is also somewhat of a special case because entering into a contract requires the ability for each party to seek redress or other appropriate methods of enforcement. But once a slave, all personal agency is lost and therefore the enslaved party is no longer on equal grounds with respect to having the contract honored. It is an inherently paradoxical contract.
Contrast this with selling your right to free speech with an NDA: you still have access to all the methods of enforcement and redress if disagreements about the terms arise while the contract is in effect.
I'd recommend doing some reading on constitutional law and specifically interpretations of the 4th amendment. One cannot "sell" their 4th amendment right, because the text of the amendment places obligations on the government. The act of buying 3rd party data is tantamount to a search and seizure, regardless of whatever TOS was signed by the user who provided that data.
> The act of buying 3rd party data is tantamount to a search and seizure, regardless of whatever TOS was signed by the user who provided that data.
Legally, this is false, but obviously most people here would advocate for data ownership and control, even when it's transferred under a contract (regardless if it's via a checkbox, or signed and notarized).
When I said Feds I meant it as the federal government in general, not a reference to The (Fed)eral Reserve. Because I'm guessing that if Treasury can do this, it's also an option available to any investigative branch of the federal government.
People willingly give up a lot of data about themselves. We can have a conversation about the details if you're willing to do more than just basically say "you're wrong" without justifying that. Of course you're under no obligation to do that, but it's otherwise a waste of time and low-effort posts run counter to HN community guidelines.
