[iinnPP]

I would say it qualifies under unreasonable.

It's unreasonable to expect every citizen to understand when and where their data is being taken.

It's unreasonable to expect people to understand what actions lead to what data points.

It's unreasonable to assess data for unrelated traits that don't match every person perfectly.

It's unreasonable to trust a company selling data to not at some point include illegal data. Certainly not without a verified chain of custody.

It is unreasonable for the government to bypass the constitution by using limited interpretation of language.

[krapp]

The "unreasonable" part of the Fourth Amendment refers only to "unreasonable search and seizure" by law enforcement, not to any and every subjectively unreasonable aspect of society or law.

[haswell]

I'd state what the parent comment says a bit differently: the availability of data for purchase does not make its purchase by law enforcement magically "reasonable".

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In a digital world, one's "Person" and "effects" have become inseparable from the phones/platforms we communicate with. Participation in many cases is not a choice if one is to function in society.

The requirement that warrants are issued only upon establishment of probable cause also highlights the issue here. It seems highly dubious that a company holding your data and selling that data is somehow an acceptable end-around the warrant requirement.

Is this all technically legal? Seems like it might be. Is this what the authors of the 4th amendment had in mind? Seems extremely unlikely.

[lesuorac]

> Is this all technically legal? Seems like it might be. Is this what the authors of the 4th amendment had in mind? Seems extremely unlikely.

you are not inconvenienced when the NSA buys data in the same way that you're inconvenienced when you have to feed/house a soldier.

While it's extremely unlike the authors of the 4th amendment had the internet & etc in mind this concept of selling things to the government surely was known to them and so the current implementation would be OK from their perspective.

A lot of the first 10 amendments are about protecting your physical property from the Government. 2nd - Guns, 3rd - House, 4th - Property, 8th - Money. The digital bits that Google and etc created (ex. metadata) are clearly neither in your procession nor your property. There is no amendment that protects letters you wrote but gave to somebody else nor recordings made by somebody else of your interaction with them.

[Joeri]

When you send someone a letter it is held by the post office, but it is definitely not allowed for the government to open those without a warrant, even if they do not inconvenience you. When you rent a house from a landlord they can’t turn around and sell warrantless access to that house to the government.

People have digital homes just as they have physical homes, and they have digital letters (mail, messages or chat) traveling to and from those digital homes. It is not unreasonable to expect all of that to be private against broad government surveillance.

[lesuorac]

Those examples are still different from reality.

You're decided to add a condition of "held by the post office" to the letter example. This is not at all what I wrote. Once the letter is delivered (as it was in my example) that recipient may give it to the Government without a warrant. The government may just not forcibly take it without a warrant.

Again, NSA isn't going into your digital home. They're going into Verizon's digital home and Verizon has invited them in there. Sure Verizon has information there that you gave them but just like if it had written Verizon physical letters it's not _your_ home its _Verizon's_ home.

It's fine to think of this like a loophole but gathering information and selling it really isn't some novelty that didn't exist in the 1700s.

[iinnPP]

I should have been more clear, but it seems the message got to you correctly.

I can't read the 4th amendment and this article and not come to a conflict. It seems obvious to me that it is unreasonable to expect a person (with the average IQ being 94-98) to understand what data on their phone is public or private.

It's obvious because we have millions of teenagers believing they have privacy on their phones to a point where they break incredibly consequential laws to store sexualized imagery there.

What the average citizen believes is private is where the goal posts should be.

So a potential solution is to poll America asking the following question:

Donald Trump and Joe Biden would both like to download all the data on your phone to share with the world via press conference. Do you accept? If 50% of people so no, it is unreasonable.

Disclaimer: I worked on Geolocation products with the top 3 aggregators and have extensive experience with Palantir.

[lesuorac]

Geolocation and your sexts are two separate things so your poll doesn't reflect what is purchased.

[iinnPP]

The poll is to determine if people understand that their phones are essentially the government.

Both geolocation and sexual proclivities are often considered private.

2 years ago I had access to enough data to stalk any person I chose, anywhere in North America. If they connected to a network of websites (GM/Stellantis/Nissan corp and all their dealer pages, plus most of MBUSA) I could see a profile of them and where they went.

I knew their work schedule, where they worked, where they did lunch, when they were in a meeting and when they were taking the day to go to Canada's Wobderland. This was done with permission of the friend and encouraged by my boss.

The end result was dealerships having a ~90% accurate intent to purchase. Which was used to increase sale prices. We were measuring the success with our partners at a Lexus dealer in Toronto.

* Some brands(of vehicles) have been changed to similar brands to protect myself.

[lesuorac]

It's not essentially the government though.

Your example is knowing the location of somebody. That's it. You example isn't about knowing who they're calling, what they're saying, their Wordle high score, their pictures, theirs emails, etc.

I don't doubt you had highly detailed geolocation. Just make that your poll though since that's what you have an example of.

[gravypod]

If we allow this logic what is to stop the following situation:

    1. Landlord writes into rental agreements that they could have someone inspect the property every year.

    2. Sold access to people's apartments to police officers every year.

In this situation a third party secured access to something which is traditionally constitutionally protected. This third party is in a position of power that is hard to bargain with (as many tech companies are). Most people wouldn't agree to this if they had the option to say no and would not expect this lease clause to be used this way.

[troll_v_bridge]

Collecting data is specifically searching and seizing, and in an unreasonable manner without warrant.

[weard_beard]

… they’re using the data to perform searches …