Here is a file to give an idea what the data looks like (xlsx-file): https://web.archive.org/web/20230525225541mp_/https://xandr-be-prod.zoominsoftware.io/bundle/monetize_monetize-standard/page/attachments/data-marketplace-buyer-overview/data_marketplace_public_segments_pricing_05212021.xlsx
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
World News
22018 readers
107 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well its way easier for them to buy the data they want than to get a warrant for it. Honestly, I dont think the government doing this is nearly as big of an issue as the fact that this data is available for purchase in the first place.
That's what I thought, too. If the police needs a judge's sign-off as collecting such data without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment, why then are private companies allowed to do so? I'm not a lawyer, but this is strange to me. As a legal layman I would say that private companies and data brokers are violating the law, right?
Im also a legal layman, but my understanding is that the 4th amendment protects you from this kind of data collection from the government, not from corporations. Shouldn't be that way IMO though
Read the report, it covers the legal basis they are using and why warrant protections don’t apply. The “publicly available information can’t be sensitive personal information” justification has basically allowed them to buy what would otherwise require actual warrant processes.
I think they read the report; they're saying that corporations shouldn't be able to sell that information in the first place, to anyone. The government can't use the "it's publicly available information" excuse if nobody else can legally collect it to sell it to the gov and other corpertions. (Aka, they can't "make it publicly available.")
People are arguing that if it's illegal for the gov to collect the info directly, it should also be illegal for a corporation to collect and/or sell that info directly, thus closing the loophole.
Yes, privacy should be an 'unwaivable right'. I'm not sure whether this is the correct legal term, but it should indispensible like basic human rights.
This is somewhat related:
The CIA Is Begging Congress to Please Keep Spying on U.S. Citizens Legal
High-level officials from the CIA, FBI, and NSA are testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, asking Congress to continue allowing the agency to spy on the communications of US citizens. They are urging Congress to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—one of the nation’s most hotly contested government surveillance programs. Intelligence agencies have long cited the powerful 2008 FISA provision as an invaluable tool to effectively combat global terrorism, but critics, including an increasing number of lawmakers from both parties, say those same agencies have morphed the provision into an unchecked, warrantless domestic spying tool. The provision is set to expire at the end of this year.