This article is about corporations tracking them, and then the government buying it from them. Though I'd prefer the corporations weren't collecting and selling this data, te government buying this data to sidestep the need for a warrant is objectionable.
Why is it objectionable? Does the government need a warrant to e.g. read comments on Hacker News?
The purpose of a warrant is to override the usual protections of privacy and against government intrusion. If the information in question is not private in the first place, there is no intrusion.
To be clear, I strongly agree with the conclusion that the end result is distasteful and we should make some sort of change in our society to avoid it. But I don't think the right step is to say that certain information which is publicly available is somehow not available to the government - it doesn't seem like either a sound argument or an enforceable restriction in practice. I think, if the information is too private to reveal to the government, it is certainly too private to be in the hands of an unaccountable unelected unauditable corporation in the first place.
Because requiring a warrant means due process; it's part of the job of the government.
Buying data is using tax payers' money, to buy private data of the tax payers.
It's entirely reasonable that tax payers are upset about this.
> I think, if the information is too private to reveal to the government, it is certainly too private to be in the hands of an unaccountable unelected unauditable corporation in the first place.
I disagree. The government can require the information to be revealed if there is due process; it's never totally "not available to the government".
Corporations don't work for the people; the government does. Corporations cannot impose a rule on people by violence. The government can. They are fundamentally different; I don't see why one having the data leads to the justification of the other having the same unfettered access.
People can be upset about what the government is doing, and impose restrictions to its access and power, even when what it did was technically legal. If the government is as frivolous as corporations can be and act, it's dangerous and worrying.
It's a complete end run around regulation designed to keep government data gathering in check - just because its legal doesnt mean its the wrong incentive for our government to help corporations spy on us all and keep those corporate hegemonies which work best with surveillance states in power.
While I think this data should just be considered private, the reasons that a business would have for purchasing it worry me less than the reasons the government would buy it. Yes, both entities could abuse the data, but corporations also have the usual scummy profit based use as well.
The data collection companies say that they only sell to vetted clients. I agree that trying to make selling to the government illegal would be a poor move, but they should consider voluntarily barring government organizations in an attempt to prevent this becoming a bigger issue and laws being made to stop it
