Using Fourth-Party Data Brokers To Bypass the Fourth Amendment 181
An anonymous reader writes "Coming out of Columbia Law School is an article about commercial data brokers and their ability to provide information about individuals to the US government despite Fourth Amendment or statutory protections (abstract, full PDF at Download link). Quoting: 'The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information that has been voluntarily disclosed to a third-party or obtained by means of a private search. Congress reacted to these holdings by creating a patchwork of statutes designed to prevent the government's direct and unfettered access to documents stored with third-parties; thus, the government's access is fettered by various statutory requirements, including, in many cases, notice of the disclosure. Despite these protections, however, third-parties are not restricted from passing the same data to other private companies (fourth-parties), and after the events of September 11, 2001, the government, believing that it needed a greater scope of surveillance, turned to the fourth-parties to access the personal information it could not acquire on its own. As a consequence, the fourth-parties, unrestricted by Fourth Amendment or statutory concerns, delivered — and continue to deliver — personal data en masse to the government.'"
We're doing it to ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.
Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?
Re:It's not a loophole, it's a feature. (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCOTUS ruled that Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures doesn't extend to where you voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party. In response to these rulings, Congress passed a statute to prevent the government from overreaching. It appears to have a loophole, and I'm sure in time Congress will fix it.
It's going to be concerned about stuff like this, but making unsubstantiated complaints about veiled illegitimacy is completely counterproductive.
Query (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a Lawyer, but wouldn't this make those agencies contracted to do this by the Government de facto Agents of the Government, and therefore any materials obtained by them in violation of the 4th Amendment poisoned?
Also, wouldn't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?
Re:Bend over citizen (Score:1, Insightful)
What's even more awesome than normal in this case is that they're not only playing Big Brother, but they're being tremendously fucking inefficient about it and getting information that's muddled by the whisper game [wikipedia.org]. The waste of money through poor efficiency and accuracy AND violation of freedoms involved here has to be some kind of record.
Re:Sharing vs taking. (Score:5, Insightful)
"At the most basic, it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected."
Do you voluntary provide information about you to LexisNexis ?
Thought so.
Re:Bend over citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
Loopholes. Always loopholes.
The B.S. in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.
You can't get around it just by renaming it. Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.
WTF, really. Lets get a prosecution on this crap. The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US. Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.
Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you expect to get a great job if your boss was screaming about public health care, land mines, lead, mercenaries having fun with children, drugs and the CIA, water quality ect.
All that is taboo in the USA.
If the advisor fails, the left or right swaps out the right or left with a more corporation friendly person and team.
A man or woman who knows who pays for their lifestyle, elections and a few naughty extras.
If its a mess and mid term, just blackmail or force a recall. Fox will get the "left" trouble maker, the liberal blogosphere the right.
If they are clean, work on the family tree or get someone close to them to make them fail.
Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Query (Score:4, Insightful)
Protip: If someone creates a convoluted rule system, and you’re then buying into his rule system, and try to argue on the definition of those rules, you have already lost before you started.
The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own set of values that you are secure in. Then you can let them play in your reality, instead of you entering theirs. :)
Re:Bend over citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Everything can be accessed once they have a shred of evidence to warrant access. This has been standard since long before anything as silly as the patriot act. It's the whole point of a warrant, really.
Without evidence, I can hardly agree that anyone should ever have unblocked access to my privacy, or yours. I'm amazed that my military, which I served in, is not fighting people who break my constitutional rights.
I agree with you about companies. The problem is that our country permits companies to do almost anything they want in agreements with customers and they give the customers the consumer power. Sadly, we're all a bit too ignorant or careless to ignore the companies that abuse us. I wonder if that has anything to do with the oligo-glomerate associations that direct media/information and politics?
Your Constitutional rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, both major political parties will do the same thing to correct this injustice! And both will blame the other party, while doing nothing about it.
Re:Facebook exists for a reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always wondered whether the NSA is buying billions of dollars of Ads from Google, or various other companies :).
They can always get the money. The US military has "black budgets". The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it (there's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried, but they're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount).
So it's a matter of whether they can disguise the transfer well enough.
That said, google should be able to make a lot of $$$$ if they ever dealt in stocks and other financial stuff, and used what they know. While it's not quite insider trading, they do have an advantage. And they could do something innocuous and profit from it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/ [wired.com]
I doubt they do the second thing though. As for the first case, I do wonder who are buying all those ads - I know a fair number are, but fact is google typically finds your organization and products well enough without you needing to advertise.
Re:Sharing vs taking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit reporting agencies would be a better example.
Re:We're doing it to ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny but at face value sounds unrealistic, the parent already said government is *us* so anything the government does is a reflection of our own will. Of course that's a lie, the government don't listen to the public anymore.
I don't claim to understand the problem or to know the solution. it is vast. I'll talk about Mexican politics but I guess its roughly the same in the US. My representative said during his campaign that he wold work to lower taxes. And the very next thing he did was rise them. Now I didn't vote for him but the people that did, did so because of his campaign promises, I assume so how could he betray his word so easily? We need a mechanism to punish politicians for betraying their people but what can we do?
During our last presidential election fraud a massive pacifist protest was launched to have every vote counted because thousands of votes from the poorest regions of the country were omitted from them count for no sane reason. The protest was huge and lasted for over a month. It didn't work.
Are we supposed to start a violent revolution (again)? But carrying weapons is illegal and even if it was legal using them is not, planing on using them is not. That's the very definition of thought crime but the same is true in the States. Just planning a coup d'etat is already illegal. Only way to accomplish this is keeping it secret and small ensuring failure. Even that is impossible to carry because the government spies on the population and the population has bought on the idea that it's ok for the law to access all private information it claims to need in the name of protecting us.
Worse yet, violent uprising *is* a crime so they wouldn't be even transgressing the law which they do regularly anyway.
Do we have any realistic (effective) options to punish politicians for not keeping their promises?
Re:Bend over citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until fairly recently, the scope and utility of "indirect" surveillance methods has been extremely limited by hard technological constraints. The available direct methods were either highly invasive(having thugs ransack your house, looking for incriminating evidence, is hard to ignore), highly symmetric(the classic "small town where everybody knows everybody and somebody is always looking through their blinds" scenario), highly expensive(pretty much anything that involves sending out field agents and collecting big filing cabinets full of paper), or some combination.
Sheer cost presents one valuable passive defence against surveillance. Even if the state has unlimited legal power, their supply of jackbooted enforcers is finite, which places a hard cut-off on the set of people worth spying on. Invasiveness doesn't create hard cut-offs; but means that the state must either confine its surveillance to unpopular people, or pay a public relations/popular discontent cost every time it hits a sympathetic target. Symmetry is not a limit to surveillance per se(in fact, traditional societies with high levels of surveillance symmetry are often virtually transparent); but it effectively retards the development of opaque concentrations of surveillance power.
Contemporary technology has substantially relaxed all these restraints. Having your data silently copied and collated somewhere out in the aether of the complex modern economy is virtually invisible. No muss, no fuss, no doors battered down, no raids to upset the neighbours. It is also highly asymmetric. Only the most dedicated privacy wonks even know who knows about them, much less knows anything useful about those entities. This is, in part, because those entities take pains to hide("national security letters" vs. ordinary warrants, national security classifications, opaque corporations that, at most, are obliged to provide certain financial data, if publicly traded) ; but also because of the sheer complexity of modern civilization and life. If you live in a small town, knowing all possible surveillance entities requires basic social skills. In modern society, you basically need to be, or have access to, an investigative reporter, a lawyer, an accountant, a techie, and a fair surveillance expert yourself just to keep up. The final issue is cost. Two things have changed here. One is that the contemporary developed world is really fucking rich by the standards of any point in human history(at least until the fossil fuels give out). We can simply afford to spend far more on things that don't put food on the table without driving the population into the depths of squalor that provoke revolutions. The other is a little more subtle: a lot of modern surveillance data is "free" or cheap because its creation is subsidized by some other purpose. For example, the need to connect(and bill for) your cellphone calls is what finances the collection of substantial amounts of handset location, call record, and financial data. Transferring those data to the Feds is just a small additional cost. Advertising and marketing firms are perhaps even more dangerous in that regard. Once data concerning consumers becomes a commodity, the free market efficiently goes about collecting it. The Feds spend a great deal of money on surveillance, it is true; but these private sector processes are a potent multiplier of the bang they get for their buck.
This is why I am extremely pessimistic about the fate of privacy. Even if the political climate for privacy were better(and, frankly, it fucking sucks right now), we would still be crafting regulation against the tide of private sector incentives for surveillance. As any number of examples show, regulating against business incentives is hard. Further, because so much of modern surveillance is silent, and seemingly unobtrusive, it incurs a much smaller politic
Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
but if you believe that, then the phone book, and all data in it is copywritten. It's a "good thing" that data itself can not be copywritten. If that weren't the case, then all information would be copywritten.
Re:Query (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee).
Correct. Seems to be that historically, as long as the cops didn't ask - directly or indirectly - for the evidence BEFORE it was collected, then the collector is not considered an agent of the government.
However, in cases like this, it seems to me that an excessive use of such services creates an implied request for the collection of such information and in particular a contract to deliver any information in an ongoing fashion would pretty much define them as acting on the behalf of the government. That they might have other customers for the same information should not be enough to void that relationship either.
Driver license became a national ID (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the avenue the Feds took to get a ad-hoc National ID in place. Using financial incentives, the fed govt has basically bribed the states into having the same set of required elements and data contained on each state's drivers license. Almost all of the states (a few refused the money - I don't recall which ones) are also using the same contractor to house and maintain the database. The fed govt gets indirect access to this database via the same contractor using symantec's like "we don't have access to the data", yet they have contractors who can "provide reports from this data".
Don't believe me? Go look up the requirements for allowing a state drivers license to be used as a passport for driving across the border.