Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Privacy

House Passes Bill Requiring Warrant To Purchase Data From Third Parties (thehill.com) 54

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The House on Wednesday approved a bill that would limit how the government can purchase data from third parties — legislation that scored a vote after negotiations with a group of GOP colleagues who briefly tanked a vote on warrantless spy powers. Dubbed the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale, the legislation passed 219-199. It requires law enforcement and other government entities to get a warrant before buying information from third-party data brokers who purchase information gleaned from apps. [...] Senior administration officials said the measure would blind U.S. intelligence outfits from getting information easily purchased by foreign intelligence operations.

"In practice, these standards make it impossible for the [intelligence community], law enforcement to acquire a whole host of readily available information that they currently rely on," an administration official said. "Covered customer records as defined in the bill is very broad and includes records pertaining to any U.S. person or indeed any foreigner inside the United States. And as a practical matter, there's often no way to establish whether a particular individual was in the U.S. at a particular time a piece of data was created. Unless you did one thing, which is paradoxically to intrude further into their privacy just to figure out whether you could obtain some data." "It can be impossible to know what's in a data set before one actually obtains a data set," the official continued. "So you'd be barred from getting that which you don't even know."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Passes Bill Requiring Warrant To Purchase Data From Third Parties

Comments Filter:
  • by Can'tNot ( 5553824 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @10:42PM (#64403402)
    So no restrictions on the data that apps can collect on you. No restrictions on third-party data brokers. No limitations on what anyone can do with that information, other than law enforcement. We cripple our own security, and give free reign to every sleazy startup, identity thief, con artist, and marketing executive.

    And then our legislators pat themselves on the back for doing it.
    • Yep. Government wins when it says government can't do anything. The recipe for government to fall.

      • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        Anyway, I am getting sick of those FA about legislation against big tech, the majority coming from EU. I know I am a little selfish because big tech schemes don't really impact me. I must be dreaming out loud but I think money should be invested in education instead. Educated Internet users would quickly turn down all the big tech schemes and make them useless. I mean, if no data about yourself is there, what data would there be to buy? Educate users instead and make the data about users who don't care avai

      • Government wins when it says government can't do anything.

        This isn't saying the government can't do anything.

        It just says that law enforcement has to explain to a judge why they need the data. That's all. It's not a high bar.

        Thousands of warrants are issued every day.

        • Indeed, it's what I would call a very low bar, especially since you know that such a warrant would most likely not be critical, allowing the agency to judge-shop for one that signs off on pretty much anything.

        • Yup, and requiring a warrant is nearly the same as no requirement at all. Indeed, since at least 2015, many FISA warrants were, recently issued despite flawed or plainly illegally obtained.

          From an article:

          "the OIG reviewed 29 FISA applications from eight FBI field offices to check for compliance with mandatory “Woods Procedures.” Those procedures require agents to compile supporting documentation for each fact contained in a FISA application to ensure that they are “scrupulously accurate.

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        That's been the R's playbook ever since Reagan, i.e., knacker the Fed. Gov. and then whine incessantly about how the Fed. Gov. is not working, and then campaign on how the R's are doing it for "the American People". That they do not give a flying rat's ass about "the American People" shows up in how they allowed companies to screw "the American People" and then pass that off as "cutting regulations" to improve "the Economy". The lack of regulation is companies' kickback for supporting these bozos in the ne

    • It's worse than limited symptom-treating, they'll have no need to purchase data at all when they can just compel domestic companies to hand the data over China-style:

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

    • by Amouth ( 879122 )

      i view this a bit different - sure apps and companies can gather everything they want - but they can't put you in Jail and strip you of your rights. Government can. This ads a clear layer requirement before Government can outsource work to companies they know they are not allowed to do (which is what has been happening).

      Pulling your data from app aggregators is no different than your library checkout history or your video rental history - and this finely puts a line in the sand on it.

      • What prevents them volunteering your information to the government?
      • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        i view this a bit different - sure apps and companies can gather everything they want - but they can't put you in Jail and strip you of your rights. Government can. This ads a clear layer requirement before Government can outsource work to companies they know they are not allowed to do (which is what has been happening).

        Pulling your data from app aggregators is no different than your library checkout history or your video rental history - and this finely puts a line in the sand on it.

        Of course they can do the same as basically stripping you of your so called rights like; getting insurance at a reasonable price if able to get any just to name one because apps have snitched on you. No government needed.

        • by cstacy ( 534252 )

          i view this a bit different - sure apps and companies can gather everything they want - but they can't put you in Jail and strip you of your rights. Government can. This ads a clear layer requirement before Government can outsource work to companies they know they are not allowed to do (which is what has been happening).

          Pulling your data from app aggregators is no different than your library checkout history or your video rental history - and this finely puts a line in the sand on it.

          Of course they can do the same as basically stripping you of your so called rights like; getting insurance at a reasonable price if able to get any just to name one

          For health insurance, that's illegal in the USA, since Obamacare. However, I think they are allowed to give discounts based on behavior (participation in sponsored gyms and such). Basically everything is a "pre-existing condition" that can't be discriminated against. This area could probably be further improved, though. Are companies in the EU allowed to use information about you to discriminate? Or is that a dumb question because it's nationalized healthcare (without the intermediary leeches that we have)?

      • Government can.

        Not without cause. You've got basically two scenarios going here: in the first one you're a criminal and you're hiding from the government. In the second one the government is the criminal (corrupt) and coming after you maliciously. In the first scenario I don't see any reason why you should be protected. In the second scenario, they don't need to spy on you first before they arrest you.

        There's a third scenario, incompetence, in which an inept government falsely arrests you. But this third option really

        • by Amouth ( 879122 )

          while i agree that i'd prefer that no one track my personal info to the level that is being tracked.. that's a given.. but i'm happy they have added a clarification that the government can't dodge existing laws by just paying someone else to do the dirty work

        • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          There is a third far more likely option. Corruption inst widespread but some agent has a bug up his but because you hurt his feelings at the school board meeting and decides to fishing and pull your records.

          if he had to explain to judge the need to investigate you for terrorism comes down to you having complained that a history lesson on aboriginal smoke signals was not an appropriate use of geometry class no matter how interesting or more inclusive it may have been he'd be laughed off. However without this

        • by Striek ( 1811980 )

          Not without cause. You've got basically two scenarios going here: in the first one you're a criminal and you're hiding from the government. In the second one the government is the criminal (corrupt) and coming after you maliciously. In the first scenario I don't see any reason why you should be protected.

          The United States Constitution makes no exception for those accused of a crime, and only limited exceptions for those convicted of one.

          • I suspect that you may have lost the thread of this conversation. That was a reply to someone who made a comment about being put in jail and stripped of your rights. You seem to be suggesting that the constitution protects people who have been accused or convicted of a crime from being put in jail. The constitution does not do this, that's why we have jails.

            I don't think that you intended that.

            I later went on to make the argument that being put in jail is not something which can be addressed this way,
    • So no restrictions on the data that apps can collect on you. No restrictions on third-party data brokers. No limitations on what anyone can do with that information, other than law enforcement. We cripple our own security, and give free reign to every sleazy startup, identity thief, con artist, and marketing executive. And then our legislators pat themselves on the back for doing it.

      Yep. This.

    • If the NSA/CIA/FBI cannot find you by listening to your phone or seeing what you read/write, then buying your bank statements, won't help.

      ...by foreign intelligence operations.

      Like the UK or Australia, you mean. Yeah, I'm sure that's a real disadvantage.

    • If law enforcement didn't abuse it, we wouldn't need to tell them to stop. I think its just fine that law enforcement should have to explain to a judge that they think that a crime has been committed before they go on a fishing expedition in my dms looking for felonies.

  • by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @12:38AM (#64403604)
    You, yes you legal citizen, (and/or foreign national intelligence) can legally purchase more tracking data on anyone in the US at will than the US government can. This is perfectly logical with no contradictions whatsoever, ha ha!
    • There is a slight possibility that this absurd situation will make the government rethink the general data collection laws. ie become a case "if I can't have it, nobody should have it".

      The problem isn't access to data, it's the mere existence of the data.

      • There is a slight possibility that this absurd situation will make the government rethink the general data collection laws. ie become a case "if I can't have it, nobody should have it".

        There’s also a strong probability that this is window dressing and the Government will continue to outsource this to 3rd parties as they have since social media became popular. They won’t “buy”anything then. They’ll just demand it. Likely through a FISA loophole too.

        The problem isn't access to data, it's the mere existence of the data.

        If that were true, the FBI would have had Zuckerberg in handcuffs and confiscated his Book of Faces before he even left Harvard campus. Government LOVES the existence of that data, because they love using and abu

        • Lots of good reasons NOT to be on social media....

          It puzzles me why so many participate in that voluntary hoovering up of personal information....

  • So information that is freely given after a request doesn't require a warrant? We're not purchasing the date nor mandating it. But if you don't give it to us, welcome to a new layer of pain forever more.
    • by cstacy ( 534252 )

      So information that is freely given after a request doesn't require a warrant?

      We're not purchasing the date nor mandating it.
      But if you don't give it to us, welcome to a new layer of pain forever more.

      The data brokers involved are Big Money, the biggest companies in the world. They successfully object to that intimidation. And when undue influence comes to light, it gets publicized and folks get upset.

      On the other hand, there is the practice of gag orders where the feds can (under the umbra of "national intelligence") order you to hand over all the info, and also to never reveal that you were asked to do so. This is moderated by a secret court ("FISA") and they will definitely send you to prison.

      I can ne

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @03:06AM (#64403804)

    Predicting companies/contractors will buy data and *donate* it to the Government, or let them access it for free. Problem solved.

    • Exactly, companies like Palantir will offer a "Cloud AI" interface that aggregates these data sources and the government will buy access to the "Cloud AI", not the data. The "Cloud AI" will really just be a query interface, but as long as it is called "AI" and not "data" everything is good. Then there will be a new law, and the companies with the established relationships will provide high dollar analysts to the government as contractors and the "Cloud AI contracts" become :"labor contracts".
  • As long as other nations can purchase this, then NSA, CIA and our general intelligence community should be able to access that without a warrant.
    Now, as far requiring it for DoJ/FBI/local police/etc... GREAT.
    • This is as much nonsense as the Five Eyes all spying on each others citizens and then sharing the ill gotten gains from their intel to get around domestic protections.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      See also, "fusion centers" in the US where illegally obtained information is then laundered through local law enforcement. Like this trooper who shadowed and then pulled over and searched a vehicle for going 3mph under the speed limit:

      https://www.thedickinsonpress.... [thedickinsonpress.com]

  • To this: "So you'd be barred from getting that which you don't even know"
    -- Thomas Jefferson would have said "exactly". Maybe our "Senior Administration Officials" need to read up on not just the constitution, but the further discourses of the founding fathers on topics like this.
  • not like they haven't got a list of friendly Judges on tap 24/7
  • So, it's ok for China to buy this data but not the US? Seems to me the warrants should be required to collect the data in the first place.

  • Here's some proposed text for a new constitutional amendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, data, and effects, against unreasonable collection and searches by corporations and commercial entities, shall not be violated, and no loss of service shall issue, but upon verified cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the data to be collected or searched, and the persons or things subject to that collection or search, and the reason for the col

  • Companies can only use the info to try to sell us stuff. Unlike the governments, they have no police power. Microsoft can't force me to use Windows, but governments can take my money by force. If they can't get a warrant, that's their problem.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...