I think many people would take issue with the claim that most information is given voluntarily. How many people even know that their car connects to cell towers, which allows for location tracking, let alone who actually volunteered for it?

>How many people even know that their car connects to cell towers, which allows for location tracking, let alone who actually volunteered for it?

The bigger problem is that cars are required by law to have unique identifiers prominently displayed (ie. license plates), so you had very little expectation of privacy to begin with. Even if your car wasn't connecting to cell towers, a network of license plate readers can figure out your location, and it's unclear why consent would be needed in that case.

That's the whole premise of automation and drag net though, no? Sure, it is absolutely legal for a private investigator to park their car outside my home and follow me as soon as I leave and go anywhere in public. They can write down this information and keep logs. However, should it be legal to automate this for everyone?

I'm not asking whether it is legal but rather should it be.

It's voluntary under the letter of the law, which is the context the parent post is using.

I think we both agree that the law needs to change.

They accepted the EULA, so they know! /s

In this case the information is not provided to the government. It is purchased. The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.

> The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.

Why would buying information you have no right to privacy for require a warrant? Police do not need warrants for generally publicly available information, and if anyone can buy this information why not police? Similar to how police do not require a warrant when they ask a phone company for records and the company just gives it to them without question.

If police ask you to search your house, you could let them or you could tell them to come back with a warrant but if you let them they can use what they find.

That is an irrelevant argument. With regard to the fourth amendment all that matters is whether the government is using that information to harm or detain somebody. It does not matter how much value you place upon that information or whether anybody should have it or not.

NSA are not law enforcement, so comparing the NSA to law enforcement results in absurd conclusions.

We need to change the legal premise that entities have the right to give up data they've collected on people without the express informed consent of those people, no matter who those entities want to give that data to.

People are consenting to this, that’s the issue. We need to change data privacy laws in general, the government buying it isn’t the real problem here it’s that it is for sale at all.

> People are consenting to this, that’s the issue.

I don't think they are, by and large. At least, not "consent" in any meaningful sense.

No this doesn’t matter, they aren’t forcing these companies to collect data they are buying data these companies collect as their business model and thus it is completely legal.

They who?

It is perfectly valid for the NSA to buy that data, because the NSA cannot use that data in a way that violates the fourth amendment without breaking other laws.

If the FBI buys that data they need to have probable cause prior to that purchase else all the purchased information and everything resulting from that information cannot be used to prosecute cases. The reason is because defendants have a legally established expectation of privacy on certain electronic communications such as email.