A surprise disclosure of a national security threat by the House Intelligence chair was part of an effort to block legislation that aimed to limit cops and spies from buying Americans' private data.
  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    41·
    9 months ago

    The impetus for killing the deal, WIRED has learned, was an amendment that would end the government’s ability to pay US companies for information rather than serving them with a warrant. This includes location data collected from cell phones that are capable in many cases of tracking people’s physical whereabouts almost constantly. The data is purportedly gathered for advertising purposes, but it is collected by data brokers and frequently sold to US spies and police agencies instead.

    Assholes gotta asshole I guess.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      166·
      9 months ago

      Like…

      The US government is probably the least offensive person buying that data

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
        27·
        9 months ago

        Gov’t agencies shouldn’t be allowed to use taxpayer money to purchase data about those same taxpayers.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          93·
          9 months ago

          You’re not wrong, exactly.

          But you realize that these same companies selling this data is literally selling it to everyone? What you- and everyone else is arguing- is that the government agencies should get a warrant to buy TP so their employees can wipe their asses.

          No. Seriously. This is a product that is for sale to the general public. Given enough funds to do so, I could go buy it. You could go buy it. anyone could go buy it. (exactly like how any one can go buy TP.).

          The problem isn’t going to go away, just because one entity can’t get it through normal channels. Those warrants are not going to be too difficult to get. The problem is that the data exists to be sold in the first place.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
            7·
            9 months ago

            You’re right. But unfettered, unregulated capitalism rules every facet of our lives rn.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          28·
          9 months ago

          Uhm… I get the emotion behind it. but you’re factually wrong. There is no federal law banning abortions, which is how in most states, women are able to have at least some access to abortions. Texas is probably also buying your data. Feel free to get outraged about that. I’ll even hold your coat while you do.

          Now lets look at the other sorts of people buying your data: the governments of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran. Non-state hackers, scammers; pretty much every corporation everywhere. PACs for Trump. PACs for Biden. Terrorists, too. And everyone else. Basically, everyone with the money to be able to pay for it is buying it, and using it for whatever purpose they want.

          The problem is that the data exists to be sold in the first place. the US government is far from the top of the list of “worst assholes” that are buying it. You deal with privacy issue, and ban companies from selling intrusive data like this… that forces the feds (and texas and everyone else) to get warrants for this data. trying to push some policy that only the feds goes after is going to be laughed at in court. Because the data is otherwise legally obtained, and legally sold. Make it illegal to collect and sell data; you get what you want, and you stop much worse

          • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            9 months ago

            There is no federal law banning abortions

            How long do you thing that would last under a Trump presidency with a house majority? I’d give it 6 months.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              23·
              9 months ago

              only a a house majority?

              Kinda need the senate in there, too. but if they have all three? it depends on how long it takes to figure out who the speaker is… once that’s settled, maybe a week?

              but again; you’re not going to be convincing the government to not go buy something as valuable as that; and much, much more cost effective than other ways to get it; when it’s publicly available for sale.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                3·
                9 months ago

                Kinda need the senate in there, too.

                Just an off-topic reminder to people that who controls each branch of government isn’t three independent variables. With the senate map favorable to them, if Trump wins the presidency, Republicans probably also won the House and Senate.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  See you say that.

                  But all I heard is “Get out and vote!”

                  I would have added an expletive or two…

              • Archer@lemmy.world
                21·
                9 months ago

                All they have to do is have Trump fire everyone at the FBI and then have you arrested once they replace everyone with his goons. Doesn’t matter what they charge you with, you get to the Supreme Court and then Roberts rules against you with the majority because wearing masks was illegal in Massachusetts in 1777. Your case didn’t involve masks, you’ve never been to Massachusetts. Bill to remove the justices fails because a Senate supermajority is required. You now have to wait decades in jail or until Congress does the right thing, choose the shortest.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  I mean, if we’re going to be making up doomsday scenarios, there better be a cell mate named bubba.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            7·
            9 months ago

            There are objectively worse people than the us govt buying my data, that’s true, however I don’t give a fuck about Iran or Russia because they can’t/won’t do anything to me. I’ll never be subject to their laws nor of any interest to them. They can’t use my work from home status nor porn habits against me. The us govt is another matter, though. If they suddenly decide an interest in knobby ankles means I’m more likely to rob a convenience store so I constantly get visits just to check whether it’s possible I am involved in a robbery, that directly effects my life.

            So I get where you’re coming from, but federal and state governments are likely to be the most immediately dangerous people who could have access to that information.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              9 months ago

              however I don’t give a fuck about Iran or Russia because they can’t/won’t do anything to me.

              you, uh, sure about that? but.

              China is operating police agencies inside the US (1, 2, 3), India is targeting Sihks who advocate for an independent state for Sihks, (1), India has probably learned it from Russia, whose become increasingly willing to poison or otherwise kill people stirring up trouble back home;

              Most state sponsored espionage is actually in the corporate sector (1,); with China being a leader there. If you have access to any sort of confidential information, you’re potentially of interest. And part of what makes “Tik Tok bad” is that it’s app is much more intrusive, including sniffing devices on your network. They- and I don’t just mean China here- hoover up all they data they can so that they can then perform more targeted operations so as to compromise new sources.

              and yes. One of the things they look for in a potential asset is their porn. Because one of the ways you can recruit an asset is shame.

              all of this is besides my original point. You’re not going to convince a judge to tell them they have to gimp themselves and get a warrant for this data, because it’s being openly sold. and, technically speaking, you’re literally just giving it to the people that are collecting it, in exchange for reduced-cost (or free) services.

  • somePotato@sh.itjust.works
    20·
    9 months ago

    TLDR: privacy law won’t pass because it would limit the government’s right to buy “commercially available data” on anyone without a warrant

    This includes location data collected from cell phones that are capable in many cases of tracking people’s physical whereabouts almost constantly. The data is purportedly gathered for advertising purposes…

    A government that actually cares about privacy wouldn’t be debating ‘should we be able to buy that data’, it would be asking the real question ‘why the fuck is it legal to collect and sell that data?’

    Even if we pretend that data will only ever be used for ads, it’s still not fucking OK for advertisers to stalk everyone everywhere 24/7 (and every use other than ad stuff is probably worse)