the problem is LEO shouldnt be able to bypass warrant requirements by purchasing thier way around it. My opinion, if you need a warrant to perform the investigation yourself, you need that warrant regardless of how you are going to obtain that data.
this is very much like a 5 year old asking parent one for something, hearing no, then quietly asking parent 2 trying to double down to get a yes answer; except its much more serious
>. My opinion, if you need a warrant to perform the investigation yourself, you need that warrant regardless of how you are going to obtain that data.
While I agree, I do understand that legally this is somewhat tricky. As long as the data remains publicly available, I can't see how to outlaw law enforcement from getting their hands on it, if we ban the agencies from buying it you'll just see fusion centers or private outreach groups buy it and gift the police.
So do we ban the sale of such data? I'm in favor of that, but it's both going to be really difficult to pass a law that can run ads saying "this bill wants to triple the cost of your cell service" and outlawing the sale could give an advantage to those capabilities of collecting on their own.
Which leaves us with banning the collection of that data, another thing I'm in favor of that I think will be impossible to pass.
This is why, no matter what anyone tells you, FAANG is an effective surveillance arm for the government, even if some of them do not know it yet. Big data remains unchecked because it bypasses rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.
the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc. pertaining to allegations There should be a ban on acting as if judicial oversight is a formality and using a contractor/broker to strawman[!] aquisition of evidence around a warrant requirement.
if there is no warrant demended then cart blanche should apply, the cops can then buy beg phone your friend, rent the apartment beside you etc. for the purpose of discovery pertaining to scope
...........................................
[!] not the HN lexical strawman but more like an FFL strawman
> the concept is that a warrant, is court appointed permission to violate legal rights for the scope of the investigation. it should be very simple, if it is determined you need a warrant for search and sieze data,property, statements etc.
The point the person you are replying to is trying to make is that there is no "search and seizure" happening at all. They can get around needing a warrant because no private, personal property is being accessed or seized. All of the information being accessed is not personal, private data owned by the individual. It is data that is owned by a company that is willingly selling it.
Fixing this requires such data to be regulated as personal data that businesses can only be custodians on, not owners.
The issue is this is publicly available. Should the police be unable to buy a newspaper that contains a story important to an investigation unless they get a warrant?
Using this data should be illegal, but I don't see any quick and easy solutions. The data is public, and trying to bar police from accessing public data without a warrant is tricky.
We get to make the rules the government plays by. Enough people need to be convinced that requiring police to present a warrant to purchase cellular location data is good for them.
I would rather see the sale of location data made illegal. Then legitimate businesses would stop selling it.
But the “legal right” is being free from search and seizure. The warrant process is a way of controlling the government’s power to conduct searches of private property that private individuals can’t do.
The police can’t use a contract broker as a middle man to do what they can’t do themselves. For example they can’t hire someone else to knock down your door and search your house. But that has nothing to do with buying data about you from a third party that legally has it.
It’s more like: police asking a witness, and them voluntarily talking. Because that’s literally what it is.
A warrant protects your belongings from search and seizure. The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away. The internet gives people a false sense of privacy because they can use it from inside of their house. But, telling Google where you parked your car during a bank robbery is no different than telling a newspaper reporter where you parked your car during a bank robbery.
The cloud is, and always has been, someone else’s computer.
The problem is that people's phone applications constantly track their locations, and that we don't regulate information brokers. It's no better for private companies to have access to that data than it is for cops. At least cops are regulated to the extent that people have the ability to ask what they're doing and maybe get a response sometimes.
I mean the problem is that this data is gathered at all.
Secondarily that the data is available for purchase to any old asshole.
That said: Joe Q Public can't arrest me, can't take my shit under the vale of asset forfeiture, can't murder me and walk away under the thinnest of pretenses, can't jail me for a decade before I even see a trial...
Police have much more power than Joe Q Public and must be held to a correspondingly higher standard of responsibility if they are to exist.
This happens at every layer of the security apparatus. There's certain limitations on spying on Americans so the US IC just lets the UK spy on Americans and then asks the UK to give them the data. And the UK does the same vice versa. It's corruption by design from the ground up.
The police don't need a court's permission to investigate or know things about you. They might need various court orders to invade private property, take stuff, or coerce third parties to help them. But they can also just knock & ask nicely.
they often make people feel as if they are obliged, or will be inconveinienced
and when you say i have nothing to discuss with you, and no business to conduct, goodnight, and leave me to my home and family they are supposed to similarily say sorry to bother you and leave.
you have the idea of a warrant on the button, as permission to violate certain legal rights.
I found this video quite illuminating, where a law professor explains why even with the best of intentions one shouldn't talk to the police.
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
this is very much like a 5 year old asking parent one for something, hearing no, then quietly asking parent 2 trying to double down to get a yes answer; except its much more serious