2024-4-19 00:31:0 Author: securityboulevard.com(查看原文) 阅读量:2 收藏
“Threatens national security.” The White House is no fan of the FANFSA bill.
The Fourth Amendment is not for sale. So says a bipartisan group of congresscritters. Their bill of the same name passed in the House yesterday.
The draft law would prevent the U.S. from buying data about Americans—data such as spending, location history or sexual proclivities. Although AdTech users could still buy whatever they wanted from data brokers, the government would need a warrant.
It’s a privacy win, some say, but the Biden administration is set against the bill. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we’re of two minds.
Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Regular rabbit.
Are You a FANFSA Fan?
What’s the craic? Rachel Schilke reports: House ends FISA saga
“Passed 219 to 199”
The House passed a bill … that prohibits the federal government from purchasing U.S. citizens’ data from third parties, a win for privacy hawks. … The bill, introduced by … Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) … and House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (R-NY), would force federal agencies to obtain a court order to purchase commercially owned data of U.S. citizens, such as their online activity and location information.
…
Davidson’s bill passed 219 to 199, with 90 Republicans and 109 Democrats voting against. … “There are so few things today that everyone agrees on. … Hopefully the American people will see this is a reliable solution,” Davidson said. … House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) spoke in opposition, … saying it would “not make people safer” and puts law enforcement at risk.
Tell me more. Rebecca Beitsch will: House passes bill requiring warrant
“National security”
Dubbed the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act, the [bill] requires law enforcement and other government entities to get a warrant before buying information from third-party data brokers who purchase information gleaned from apps. … “We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason,” [said] Nadler.
…
Still, it garnered pushback from … the White House: … “It does not affect the ability of foreign adversaries or the private sector to obtain and use the same information, thus negating any privacy benefit … while threatening America’s national security.” … Officials said the measure would blind U.S. intelligence outfits: … “It can be impossible to know what’s in a data set before one actually obtains a data set. … So you’d be barred from getting that which you don’t even know.”
Got an example of how the data are used today? Kia Hamadanchy and friends do: ACLU Urges Senate to Stop Government from Spying on Americans
“Flashing warning sign”
For years now, federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Defense, have been buying their way around … the Fourth Amendment … by purchasing Americans’ sensitive information from data brokers. These companies often obtain this information through common applications, like The Weather Channel or Tinder, without users realizing it, and then the government uses it to track people’s location without a warrant or probable cause — or even suspicion that anyone in the dataset had done anything wrong.
“The bipartisan passage of this bill is a flashing warning sign to the government. … We hope this vote puts a fire under the Senate to protect their constituents and rein in the government.
Surely it shouldn’t be available to anyone? It’s complicated, writes Joe Lancaster:
The Stored Communications Act forbids technology companies from disclosing certain subscriber information. … But certain types of data—including search histories, credit reports, employment records, and cellphone geolocation data—is “commercially available” and can be sold by … data brokers. Often this data is purchased by private companies in order to better tailor their ad spending.
…
As recently as 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed … that the government cannot access a person’s cellphone location data without a warrant. … But instead of honoring that decision, law enforcement and intelligence agencies just started buying the information from data brokers instead.
What would Alexander Pope say? toomuchtodo damns with faint praise:
This is a solid effort, but the root cause is unregulated data brokers and their ability to aggregate, store, and sell this data. It’s not that the government should require a warrant; [it’s that] these companies should not exist.
And Gustave Flaubert? According to Pinchera, G*d is in the details:
Is there a loophole through which LEOs will be permitted to pay contractors to get the data for them? … Let’s hope [not].
Similarly, dgLee worries thuswise:
This Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act looks good. But it only applies to obtaining information by paying “something of value.” What if they get the information free? What protection is there?
Wait. Pause. Brandon James points at the pachyderm in the parlor:
The government is already hoovering up all this information on Americans on its own. Didn’t Edward Snowden prove that, decades ago?
…
Solving crimes is not an acceptable end that justifies the means of spying on all citizens. … I’m good with limiting the government’s access to our data even if others have it. Because the government alone has the power to take away our freedom.
What about the Thin Blue Line, though? u/ensmithpeng ain’t buying the outrage:
If P&G can buy location data, why is it wrong for the police? I think that the use of DNA matching services to track criminals is inspired.
Meanwhile, em-bee hopes for a side effect—killing the data-broker business:
Most importantly: It removes one potential lucrative buyer, making the business less profitable.
And Finally:
Hat tip: Short of the Week LLC, dba Shortverse
You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites—so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi, @richij, @[email protected], @richi.bsky.social or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Do not stare into laser with remaining eye. E&OE. 30.
Image sauce: John Brighenti (cc:by; leveled and cropped)
Recent Articles By Author
如有侵权请联系:admin#unsafe.sh