[doctoboggan]

The legal argument is that we gave this data "voluntarily" to the data broker so the government no longer needs a warrant.

This is an area that desperately needs new laws to catch up to the reality of what is going on, but I don't really see much motion toward that goal in the near future.

[legitster]

To put it more specifically the third-party doctrine needs reforms.

There are lots of things that are public information. Anyone can request public records like land titles, marriage certificates, bankruptcy filings, etc. Even ostensibly social media posts I'm kind of okay with being treated as public information.

The question is - why is Thomson Reuters allowed to get my utility records? If you call up my utility, this is not information they will give you. But Thomson Reuters is allowed to have it.

The utility can point to the language of the contract and say it's in their terms and conditions, but for the most part, I as a consumer don't have a choice between utility companies. And the law appreciates that access to water and electricity is a right - but yet these utilities enjoy a monopoly, so the idea that accepting their terms and conditions was a consumer choice wouldn't stand up to any strong legal scrutiny.

>I don't really see much motion toward that goal in the near future.

There is progress! Carpenter v. United States was a clear win that is still slowly matriculating through the legal system.

More importantly, the Not For Sale act passed the House not too long ago with broad bipartisan support. It's stalled in the Senate (of course) - but it's clearly something that has legislative attention.

[wat10000]

The government never needs a warrant merely to ask for info, and a private entity doesn't need a warrant to voluntarily hand over info that they have. If we had decent privacy protections then a private entity couldn't decide to just hand over whatever data they have on others, but, well, we don't.

[paulryanrogers]

Increasingly it's becoming necessary to disclose data to private entities just to survive and live a reasonable approximation of a normal life.

Why have constitutional protection against search if in practice nothing can be shielded from such searches?

[esseph]

> Why have constitutional protection against search if in practice nothing can be shielded from such searches?

Now you begin to understand.

And it is extremely unlikely we ever get a constitutional amendment to fix it. We're more likely to simply fall apart as a nation first.

[fhdkweig]

Every once in a while a company will publicly push back on such requests, but I feel it is getting rarer. Public libraries are a good example of places that still care about privacy, but companies that have to worry about going out of business because of a heavy-handed government tend to cave easily.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

agreed. The sale of data is effective a run around existing law that forbids govt to collect it.

This is a huge issue. Privacy is dead as long as the government can buy its way around it.

Sheriffs depts and FLOCK, Ring Cameras, FBI , etc.