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."
"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."
Our substitute for meaningful privacy legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
And then our legislators pat themselves on the back for doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Government wins when it says government can't do anything. The recipe for government to fall.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not a high bar (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism! seriously? name a business that would freely give information without some type of kickback.. that kickback would make it a purchase and require a warrant..
Re: (Score:2)
Israel or some other 5 eye country buys the info and shares it.
Re: (Score:2)
with a law requiring a warrant to obtain - if they did accept it from a foreign government it wouldn't hold up against a US citizen on US Soil, and anything learned based on that data wouldn't be immiscible.. this should dis-incentivize even accepting information like this without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Our substitute for meaningful privacy legislat (Score:2)
Per what you linked to, that was part of an authorized program..... You can be very assured they paid them for the access.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Our substitute for meaningful privacy legislat (Score:2)
Like the UK or Australia, you mean. Yeah, I'm sure that's a real disadvantage.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You spying power vs US Governments (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
It puzzles me why so many participate in that voluntary hoovering up of personal information....
Re: (Score:3)
But if the information is given to them by a third party... then it doesn't matter anyways. What's stopping local police forces from buying up third party data and just sharing the info, or e.g. Israel just "sharing" the info.
Because in court they have to explain where they got this so-called "information". That's why when they want to use information obtained illegally from an intelligence agency, they have to develop an elaborate story (lie) that describes an alternate course of how (given the facts they are using) they conducted the investigation to obtain those facts. This is called “parallel construction”.
Freely given? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
And worked around in 3...2...1... (Score:3)
Predicting companies/contractors will buy data and *donate* it to the Government, or let them access it for free. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
mostly a big mistake (Score:2)
Now, as far requiring it for DoJ/FBI/local police/etc... GREAT.
mostly fascist (Score:2)
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]
Oppose any new laws (Score:3)
This congress (the House of Reps specifically) is not capable of doing anything properly and they are putting out almost entirely worthless attention seeking bills and what has a chance of passing requires so many flaws it's functionally useless or harmful.
Simplistically, this always was the case and how Democracy actually does work but the ratio of good vs chaos is the worst in history; as we near collapse. Sadly, about half won't even realize the country collapsed... as long as their national tribe remain
Re: (Score:2)
We, the Citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, shall have the right to amend the constitution directly, by having a simple majority of voters of three fourths of the states OR two thirds of voters in two thirds of the states, within a 10 year period of the first state passing the amendment. [substack.com]
A simple amendment like that would allow us to fix a large number of issues that CONgress will not do. Why will they not do it? Because they
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that? If you had paid attention to Snowden the ILLEGAL spying that was going on, was NOT from NSA iteself, but from individuals in there using gear that was only meant to go after terrorists, spies, etc. but instead using it on their own families/friends.
And there is a lot less sharing of information in the 5Is than you realize. To ask one of the others means that you g
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does your second url have to do with ANY of this? 2 criminals were illegally stopped, but not due to any information from above.
Fusion centers? Are you talking about information moving from local LEOs up to the FBI and DNI??
Personally, I would prefer that information to go to DNI et. al, and not FBI, but that is for judges to decide. Even if the information flows downwards, I am good with that, AS LONG as it was legally obtained and is applicable to the situation. For example, NSA did NOT tap
Thomas Jefferson (Score:2)
-- 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.
A warrant - wohoo! (Score:2)
something wrong (Score:2)
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.
Extend the 4th Amendment to corporations (Score:2)
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
So what? (Score:1)
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.