My data is already bought and sold by companies. But when government agencies do it, suddenly we only need to stop them. Stop this madness. It shouldn’t matter if it’s corporations or a government, why not stop the sale of people’s data?

  • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does the NSA need a warrant to purchase information that’s being legally gathered and sold?

    While it’s extremely immoral and unethical, I’m not sure about unconstitutional.

    • ericjmorey@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Does the NSA need a warrant to purchase information that’s being legally gathered and sold?

      The governments in the US shouldn’t be collecting non-public information without a warrant if acquiring that information directly would require a warrant. Seems like a clear infringement of the 4th amendment.

    • Smoke@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, no more than its illegal for a detective to use evidence seized in a raid against a thief ring, to arrest drug dealers because there was a photo of them holding big bags of cocaine with “We Love Dealing Drugs” written and autographed on the back. They’d never have a search warrant for the dealers’ house normally, but because it was robbed by someone else and the photo turned up somewhere else for them to find, it’s fair game.

    • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well if a thing is immoral and unethical, then isn’t it reasonable to call for it to be MADE illegal?

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sure, but ex post facto is a thing. If people feel that this should be illegal they should write their representatives, but this headline is disingenuous.

        Actions are only illegal if they were against the law at the time they were taken. If fireworks become illegal on July 5th I can’t be found guilty for shooting them off on July 4th.

        The headline implies the NSA broke a law that does not exist, actively misleading those who read it. Shame on the “journalist” or editor that wrote it. Fabricated criticisms and grievances dilute genuine ones.

        • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          If people feel that this should be illegal they should write their representatives

          Waste of time and paper and you know that. Our representatives that would support us in this, and not just reply with a form letter, already know and push the issues but they are a minority in congress.

          If fireworks become illegal on July 5th I can’t be found guilty for shooting them off on July 4th.

          I’m more concerned with making sure it doesn’t happen in the future. If that means everyone being shitbags in the past get a free pass, maybe that’s worth it.

          The headline implies the NSA broke a law that does not exist,

          It sure would be nice if the PATRIOT act hadn’t fucked everyone’s opinion on privacy.

          • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            All of this is at best tangential.

            The NSA broke no law. The article’s headline implies that the NSA broke the law. This headline is misleading.

              • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yes, wanting factual, unbiased journalism truly is the greatest form of simping.

                You clearly didn’t read the tail end of my original comment. Fabricated grievances dilute genuine ones. This publication is crying wolf. This makes people pay less attention when news breaks about an actual fuckup.

                  • esaru@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    The fact that the NSA was apparently not breaking the law is actually more infuriating and shifts focus on the need to change the law, which is opposing the government. You see, it’s always better to stick to the facts if you want to change things to the better.

        • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          then maybe you should limit your ‘chilling effect’ replies as to not damp down the fervor for change that is starting to develop in response to government overreach.

          Arguing that it isn’t unconstitutional isn’t productive if you want to see it changed.

          You don’t have to be a Devil’s Advocate for bad government policy.

          • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Maybe you should work on your chill, buddy, because I was asking a question. I don’t know if the SC has ever ruled on whether the government is allowed to purchase commercially available information without a warrant.

            I made no argument in favor of the practice. In fact, I went out of my way to state that I disagreed with the practice.

            But you’re well aware of that, aren’t you?

            • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I bet you think if you lick that boot good enough they won’t step on your neck with it.

              So fucking naive.

              Also I already reported your sockpuppets, enjoy the ban.