9 ms·

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendm

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

caconym_ 5mo ago
Honestly it should probably just be illegal for anyone, private or public, to engage in mass surveillance (or "data gathering", whatever) of anybody who didn't expressly consent to it. As long as the data exist, they will be abused.
- inetknght 5mo ago
  Not only that, but it should be illegal (eg: fines for the company and potential jail time for executives) for tying consent to use/purchase of services or products. Consent should be _voluntary_, not mandatory.
- nandomrumber 5mo ago
  But I did expressly consent. When I installed the SoundCloud app and it told me by continuing I agree to them sharing my data with their 954 partners.[1] 1. I’m not even joining. When I mostly recently installed the SoundCloud app - for the first time on a new device, that’s what’s it said: 954 partners. How can anyone reasonably understand what it is their agreeing to in that scenario.
  - Perseids 5mo ago
    This is the important point. You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. This is one of the central pillars of the GDPR without which it wouldn't work at all. Be advised to make asking customers for consent that doesn't directly benefit them illegal as well, lest you risk creating another wave of malicious cookie banners.
    - Joker_vD 5mo ago
      > You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. Which is why "we don't serve patrons without shoes and pants" policy is unconstitutional, yeah. If you don't want to agree to a business's demands — you're welcome to not deal with them and look for an alternative. All the alternatives have the same (or even worse) demands? Unless you can prove collusion, that's just how the invisible hand of the market worked its magic out. Go petition you congressman to violate laissez-faire even more than it already is, I guess.
      - LadyCailin 5mo ago
        The trouble with this is that I, at least, am trying to live in a society. And society has both rights and responsibilities. Sometimes you are forced to do things, or don’t do things, contrary to your desires. Every freedom has two sides, you can’t ignore the fact that increasing some freedoms for one decreases other freedoms for others. The shirt and shoes example is a great example in fact that illustrates the point. You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes, just like a business does not have unlimited freedom to impose whatever terms it likes, just because it put it in its ToS.
        Joker_vD 5mo ago
        > You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes Okay, I am gonna be 100% serious here: you absolutely should have such a freedom. Just as loitering or jaywalking being a crime is inherently totalitarian, what the hell.
        alistairSH 5mo ago
        In this case, unlimited means literally everywhere. You do have the right to go barefoot in your own home. And in true public spaces. But, a property owner can require shoes. Do I care if somebody is barefoot in the local grocer? No, not really. But, the proprietor might because they want to limit their liability (should something fall on your foot, a cart run it over, or a loose tack/nail somehow land in an aisle, etc).
- brazzy 5mo ago
  You mean something like a... general regulation for data protection?
therobots927 5mo ago
Means of Control by Byron Tau and Surveillance Valley by Yasha Levine. Can’t recommend these books enough for anyone who is skeptical of the above claim.
RHSeeger 5mo ago
Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.
- nullc 5mo ago
  They're also one and the same generally-- at least if the stalker has money or the right friends most kinds of law enforcement access means stalker access. It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker, and there are so many people that work in law enforcement that bribing, impersonating, or persuading your way to access is not that big a deal. Not to mention that enabled stalkers can just file a federal lawsuit and issue subpoena for records. The only safe thing is for the records to never exist in the first place.
  - soulofmischief 5mo ago
    Further reading: AP: Across US, police officers abuse confidential databases https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43 https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e1...
  - Tangurena2 5mo ago
    > It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker This was one of the motivations for passage of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994. Nowadays, officers need a legitimate reason to run a plate - unless the patrol car is fitted with automatic cameras[1] that look up every plate of every car they drive past. > The Virginia state police used license plate readers to track people’s attendance at political events; > The New York Police Department used license plate readers to keep track of who visited certain places of worship, and how often; > Despite all this surveillance, ALPR technology has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable; like other police technologies, ALPRs can and do make mistakes.[2] Generally, court decisions have held that you have zero expectation of privacy when you are in public spaces. Current license plate standards[3] aim for plates that are not cluttered and are easily read by the human eyeball, despite being wrapped with license plate frames (which usually make the state hard/impossible to read which is the most common failure mode for ANLR[4]). If the reflectivity material (traditionally called "ScotchLite"[5]) is worn out (or defaced), most states require the plate to be replaced. Notes: 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_... Prior to passage, a slang term for running/looking up the plate/registration of a car with a pretty woman driver was "running a date". 1 - https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-rea... 2 - https://www.aclum.org/publications/what-you-need-know-about-automatic-license-plate-readers/ https://www.aclum.org/publications/what-you-need-know-about-... 3 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/646bcc8a-219b-47d8-b5cd-726240473163/License-Plate-Standard-Edition-3_September-2025-Update.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/646bcc8a-219b-47d8-b5cd-72624... 4 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/0063bf88-cb44-4ab9-90b6-200c8742a06d/License-Plate-Reader-Program-Best-Practices-Guide-Edition-2_final.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/0063bf88-cb44-4ab9-90b6-200c8... 5 - https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-us/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-u... Disclaimers: I used to work for my state's motor vehicle department and had database/developer access to driving licenses and motor vehicle registration records. I graduated from a police academy when I was a youngster.*
eru 5mo ago
100 miles around your border is a constitution free zone anyway.
- rpdillon 5mo ago
  It's not Constitution-free, but CBP does claim a lot of extra rights within that zone. It covers about two-thirds of the U.S. population. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
intended 5mo ago
A significant chunk of the infrastructure that farms data is now from private organizations, who sell that information because it is a source of revenue. Government is the bogeyman we are afraid of, but ad tech is doing the actual heavy lifting.
Terr_ 5mo ago
Necessary, but not sufficient. Even if we somehow, perhaps via magic genie-wish, made the government totally disinterested... these systems would still enable dystopian levels of private surveillance and manipulation.
dzhiurgis 5mo ago
Yeah nah I’d rather stop the criminals.
- alex_young 5mo ago
  That’s cool. The precogs over at flock say you drive too close to the criminals though, and you know what that means. Stay loyal, stay safe citizens.
  - dzhiurgis 5mo ago
    Criminals are long gone baby. Stop worshipping them.
    - righthand 5mo ago
      The Potus is literally a pedophile, criminals are here to stay and winning. Your camera company supports them as long as they have money and/or control of the system.

caconym_ 5mo ago

Honestly it should probably just be illegal for anyone, private or public, to engage in mass surveillance (or "data gathering", whatever) of anybody who didn't expressly consent to it. As long as the data exist, they will be abused.

inetknght 5mo ago
Not only that, but it should be illegal (eg: fines for the company and potential jail time for executives) for tying consent to use/purchase of services or products. Consent should be _voluntary_, not mandatory.
nandomrumber 5mo ago
But I did expressly consent. When I installed the SoundCloud app and it told me by continuing I agree to them sharing my data with their 954 partners.[1] 1. I’m not even joining. When I mostly recently installed the SoundCloud app - for the first time on a new device, that’s what’s it said: 954 partners. How can anyone reasonably understand what it is their agreeing to in that scenario.
- Perseids 5mo ago
  This is the important point. You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. This is one of the central pillars of the GDPR without which it wouldn't work at all. Be advised to make asking customers for consent that doesn't directly benefit them illegal as well, lest you risk creating another wave of malicious cookie banners.
  - Joker_vD 5mo ago
    > You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. Which is why "we don't serve patrons without shoes and pants" policy is unconstitutional, yeah. If you don't want to agree to a business's demands — you're welcome to not deal with them and look for an alternative. All the alternatives have the same (or even worse) demands? Unless you can prove collusion, that's just how the invisible hand of the market worked its magic out. Go petition you congressman to violate laissez-faire even more than it already is, I guess.
    - LadyCailin 5mo ago
      The trouble with this is that I, at least, am trying to live in a society. And society has both rights and responsibilities. Sometimes you are forced to do things, or don’t do things, contrary to your desires. Every freedom has two sides, you can’t ignore the fact that increasing some freedoms for one decreases other freedoms for others. The shirt and shoes example is a great example in fact that illustrates the point. You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes, just like a business does not have unlimited freedom to impose whatever terms it likes, just because it put it in its ToS.
      - Joker_vD 5mo ago
        > You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes Okay, I am gonna be 100% serious here: you absolutely should have such a freedom. Just as loitering or jaywalking being a crime is inherently totalitarian, what the hell.
        alistairSH 5mo ago
        In this case, unlimited means literally everywhere. You do have the right to go barefoot in your own home. And in true public spaces. But, a property owner can require shoes. Do I care if somebody is barefoot in the local grocer? No, not really. But, the proprietor might because they want to limit their liability (should something fall on your foot, a cart run it over, or a loose tack/nail somehow land in an aisle, etc).
brazzy 5mo ago
You mean something like a... general regulation for data protection?

therobots927 5mo ago

Means of Control by Byron Tau and Surveillance Valley by Yasha Levine. Can’t recommend these books enough for anyone who is skeptical of the above claim.

RHSeeger 5mo ago

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

nullc 5mo ago
They're also one and the same generally-- at least if the stalker has money or the right friends most kinds of law enforcement access means stalker access. It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker, and there are so many people that work in law enforcement that bribing, impersonating, or persuading your way to access is not that big a deal. Not to mention that enabled stalkers can just file a federal lawsuit and issue subpoena for records. The only safe thing is for the records to never exist in the first place.
- soulofmischief 5mo ago
  Further reading: AP: Across US, police officers abuse confidential databases https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43 https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e1...
- Tangurena2 5mo ago
  > It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker This was one of the motivations for passage of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994. Nowadays, officers need a legitimate reason to run a plate - unless the patrol car is fitted with automatic cameras[1] that look up every plate of every car they drive past. > The Virginia state police used license plate readers to track people’s attendance at political events; > The New York Police Department used license plate readers to keep track of who visited certain places of worship, and how often; > Despite all this surveillance, ALPR technology has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable; like other police technologies, ALPRs can and do make mistakes.[2] Generally, court decisions have held that you have zero expectation of privacy when you are in public spaces. Current license plate standards[3] aim for plates that are not cluttered and are easily read by the human eyeball, despite being wrapped with license plate frames (which usually make the state hard/impossible to read which is the most common failure mode for ANLR[4]). If the reflectivity material (traditionally called "ScotchLite"[5]) is worn out (or defaced), most states require the plate to be replaced. Notes: 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_... Prior to passage, a slang term for running/looking up the plate/registration of a car with a pretty woman driver was "running a date". 1 - https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-rea... 2 - https://www.aclum.org/publications/what-you-need-know-about-automatic-license-plate-readers/ https://www.aclum.org/publications/what-you-need-know-about-... 3 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/646bcc8a-219b-47d8-b5cd-726240473163/License-Plate-Standard-Edition-3_September-2025-Update.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/646bcc8a-219b-47d8-b5cd-72624... 4 - https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/0063bf88-cb44-4ab9-90b6-200c8742a06d/License-Plate-Reader-Program-Best-Practices-Guide-Edition-2_final.pdf https://www.aamva.org/getmedia/0063bf88-cb44-4ab9-90b6-200c8... 5 - https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-us/ https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/scotchlite-reflective-material-u... Disclaimers: I used to work for my state's motor vehicle department and had database/developer access to driving licenses and motor vehicle registration records. I graduated from a police academy when I was a youngster.*

eru 5mo ago

100 miles around your border is a constitution free zone anyway.

rpdillon 5mo ago
It's not Constitution-free, but CBP does claim a lot of extra rights within that zone. It covers about two-thirds of the U.S. population. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

intended 5mo ago

A significant chunk of the infrastructure that farms data is now from private organizations, who sell that information because it is a source of revenue. Government is the bogeyman we are afraid of, but ad tech is doing the actual heavy lifting.

Terr_ 5mo ago

Necessary, but not sufficient. Even if we somehow, perhaps via magic genie-wish, made the government totally disinterested... these systems would still enable dystopian levels of private surveillance and manipulation.

dzhiurgis 5mo ago

Yeah nah I’d rather stop the criminals.

alex_young 5mo ago
That’s cool. The precogs over at flock say you drive too close to the criminals though, and you know what that means. Stay loyal, stay safe citizens.
- dzhiurgis 5mo ago
  Criminals are long gone baby. Stop worshipping them.
  - righthand 5mo ago
    The Potus is literally a pedophile, criminals are here to stay and winning. Your camera company supports them as long as they have money and/or control of the system.