[brightlancer]

Why would the three letter agencies need to do that? There's plenty of money to be made by private businesses doing it with fewer risks of violating the law.

And the TLAs aren't interested in selling this info to state and local agencies, while that's probably the bigger dollar for private businesses.

[TechBro8615]

It doesn't even need to be nefarious or direct. Companies founded by an "ex TLA employee" have increased credibility, and might even procure investment from openly CIA-affiliated venture capital firms like In-Q-Tel. And since the founder has a security clearance (they're "in the club"), the company will have no issues procuring government contracts.

The revolving door works in both directions.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I know one prominent TLA (nominally banned from domestic surveillance) that had a contract with a data broker 25 years ago. Third party doctrine lets them ignore 4A protection.

[colechristensen]

Because sometimes there are laws that prevent governments from doing things which don't prevent them from buying the results.

[johnea]

In the US it's illegal for anyone to do it.

This is just as clear a violation of the 4th amendment as the multi-billion dollar goggle empire.

But nobody really cares about that do they? Laws are routinely enforced or ignored based on which option allows the largest profits for incumbents.

[Spooky23]

Nope. I built one of these things years ago to control a parking gate. We did a lot of legal review due to customer concerns. There’s nothing illegal unless you facilitate certain behaviors that vary by jurisdiction.

The police have huge networks. Almost all speed and red light cameras record 7-30 days of continuous video. Typically those installations cover most entry and exit points of a city. The DEA operates interstate surveillance on drug corridors. There are LPR hits and driver/passenger pictures from Maine to Miami, for example. All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public.

[AnthonyMouse]

> All legal because driving is a privilege, and you don’t have a right to privacy in public.

"Driving is a privilege" is a slogan created by authoritarians. The word "driving" doesn't appear in the constitution one way or the other. Travel is a right.

[Spooky23]

I didn't see "stuff stored on a computer hard drive" in the constitution either, just paper.

[AnthonyMouse]

So judges are smart enough to figure out that files on a computer are the equivalent of files on paper and the only reason they didn't spell that out is that they didn't exist at the time.

The analogy would then be that driving is the modern equivalent of walking or some other pre-automobile mode of transport. For that to be relevant you would then have to be making the case that driving is only a privilege and not a right because walking is only a privilege and not a right. Which you're not actually claiming, are you?

[olsonjeffery]

US Constitution worship on HN has to be, for me, one of the great disappointments for a community that regards its intelligence so highly.

The constitution is a piece of paper; it’s not internally consistent and not even rational.

[AnthonyMouse]

It is, however, federal law, and consequently the first place you start to see if something is a right under the US legal system.

[yieldcrv]

Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege

You’re free to walk

[landemva]

> Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege

True. The license to do so is a voluntary contract with State which persons may or may not sign. Alternatively, avoid "motor vehicle", and don't use words they regulate such as "operator".

Anyone in USA is free to travel in a personal conveyance for non-commercial purposes while respecting property rights of others.

> driving is a privilege

Commercial licensure of that regulated activity using those words is a privilege.

[jonathankoren]

The 4th amendment only applies to the government, and has only ever applied to actual tangible property. This is being in public where there is no expectation of privacy.

[petsfed]

Eh, the case law here is less clear, principally because automated surveillance at this scale has never been possible before. But its also unclear because this is a tricky zone for the (mentioned elsewhere) "State Actor Doctrine". Since there are legitimate, non-government uses of e.g. license plate tracking, that means the product and service is not, obviously, a state actor. So should the 14th amendment cover it? My gut feeling is "yes", but case law doesn't (yet) reflect that.

Did the founding fathers anticipate a situation where everyone, everywhere, in public, was being surveilled, ceaselessly, in a fashion that allowed automated tools to pick out individuals, but at basically zero cost?

"No reasonable expectation of privacy" presupposes that the potential invaders of said privacy are actual living human beings, who have to be paid for their time, and thus have to sleep, eat, excrete, blink, etc. They cannot be on the job 100% of the time without incurring considerable cost. Previously, perfectly tailing someone 100% of the time was reserved for the most valuable of targets. Now it can be affordably used on somebody with overdue parking tickets. Or whomever the summer intern at one of these shops decides is cute and has an easy-to-remember license plate.

[singleshot_]

The fourth amendment, of course, also applies to private actors when they become essentially agents of the state, by taking in a role traditionally within the purview of the state, so long as the state knows of the activity, more or less. If you would like a more accurate definition, you can search for “state actor doctrine” and you will find some cases about railroads drug testing employees and parcel carriers searching packages for contraband.

[pc86]

None of which applies to a company that sells this data to anyone who wants to pay for it.

[HenryBemis]

A phrase that I learned to use recently is:

"In the private sector everything is allowed, except those that are explicitly prohibited. In the public sector everything is prohibited, except those that are explicitly allowed."

This is why in the EU (which is not a perfect society, but 'good enough'/'better than others' we got GDPR and EUDPR which cannot and should not be ignored.

If you allow the public sector to go rogue, then freedoms and right will be corroded and eventually taken away 'for our sake'.

[singleshot_]

Wait, what? The fourth amendment only applies to tangible property?

Unless I am missing something really obvious, this is deeply mistaken. I would be very interested, for example, on your take on Carpenter v. US.

[SoftTalker]

Well the 4th amendment does not mention a limitation to the government. It says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" it says nothing about limitation to government actors.

It does go on to talk about Warrants which are government instruments, and I agree that taking pictures of licence plates on public roads would not be a violation anyway.

But you can't argue that because I'm a private person, or that because TransUnion is not the government, that it's legal for us to go searching through peoples houses or papers or effects.

[bee_rider]

The constitution covers government behavior.

There are lots of other laws you’d have to worry about if you were trying to investigate somebody. Trespassing/breaking and entering for example.

[JohnFen]

This. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect us here. We need plain old lawmaking.

[quantified]

TLAs aren't interested in making some money on the side?

[pixl97]

In general no, but the individuals that work for them like money and know what needs the TLA will pay for.