The parent understands all that, you do not need to repeat what they said themselves.

Times change, so do effects and outcomes. Laws don't have to be fixed for eternity. It would be really dumb if they did. Fortunately a system was designed to update laws in accordance with a dynamic environment.

No, I am disagreeing with what they said. The 4th amendment is not the issue. It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want.

The problem here is a lack of regulation for the companies that collect this data. Forget the government, data brokers can sell to anyone they want -- a stalker, someone looking to do harm to you, etc. People are harassed, robbed, cheated, scammed, and physically harmed using this information on a regular basis.

I understand you are disagreeing. They understand that the 4th Amendment doesn't offer these protections but made a claim that it does "in spirit."

> It is and should continue to be legal for people to tell the government whatever they want.

You're right, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is one of 2 things. 1) Government initiated: seeks out and requests information from others and in this case, offering payment. 2) Information holder initiated: who is specifically offering information in exchange for compensation. This is more akin to walking into your police station and saying "I have crimes to report, but I will only do so if you pay me first." Obviously this has perverse incentives and I think we can see how this can clearly be abused to circumvent any requirements for warrants or other such due process.

I do agree that this situation is in violation of the __spirit__ of our legal system. Clearly a loophole is de facto not in spirit. Whether that is a 4th Amendment or not, idk, IANAL and neither is the OP and I assume neither are you(?). 4th Amendment seems pretty reasonable to point to considering it mentions warrants and this practice is being done explicitly to circumvent warrant requirements. But clearly we all understand what is trying to be communicated here, and that's the point. I wouldn't have made such a comment if you mentioned explicitly third party doctrine (as casey did an hour before you) or cited some law which added clarity to the situation. But yes, everyone knows you can just freely go tell the police about a crime you witnessed. I'm not sure who does not understand this. I would be extremely surprised if anyone actually believed it was illegal to report crimes to authorities and immediately question their mental capacity. But I guess we disagree at what constitutes basic and obvious knowledge.

It doesn't violate the spirit of the 4th, nor is it a loophole. The 4th is not a prohibition on the government collecting information, nor is it a data privacy law. The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel. Volunteered information isn't compelled by definition, so it is fine. This was the case then and it is the case now.

> 1) Government initiated: seeks out and requests information from others and in this case, offering payment. 2) Information holder initiated: who is specifically offering information in exchange for compensation.

Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information? These existed when the BoR was written. They weren't prohibited by the writers because the writers didn't have an issue with it. The 4th isn't a "government can't know anything or can't ask anything" rule, it's a "government can't bust down your door for no reason" rule.

> I wouldn't have made such a comment if you mentioned explicitly third party doctrine (as casey did an hour before you) or cited some law which added clarity to the situation. But yes, everyone knows you can just freely go tell the police about a crime you witnessed. I'm not sure who does not understand this.

The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing.

I see your point regarding wanted posters and providing bounties for info on criminals. What’s going on with the intelligence agencies buying data from data brokers is definitely similar. However, it seems to me that the scale of what is going on at present is much larger; it is likely akin to having a wanted poster and providing bounties for any info on all people, criminal or otherwise. The vast majority of people whose data is being provided are probably innocent and not suspected of any crimes at all, nor will they ever be. And, as you say, the fourth amendment is a “government can’t bust down your door for no reason” rule. It seems where we differ is that I interpret (as does the U.S. Supreme Court since Katz v. United States) the “bust down your door” part to mean much more than my physical door, which is why I find that it violates the “spirit” of the fourth amendment: in my mind, an amount of privacy that it is reasonable to expect (e.g. what entities a person is communicating with over their own internet connection) is being denied by the government to perhaps all citizens using the Internet.

It sounds like we agree that the amount of data being collected on people via the internet is way too much and should be restricted. I think that regardless of whether or not stopping the government and its agencies from purchasing such data is or is not in keeping with the spirit of the fourth amendment, we will need legislation to protect the privacy we want from the government, and definitely from corporations. Let’s work toward that end.

> we will need legislation to protect the privacy we want from the government, and definitely from corporations. Let’s work toward that end.

I agree with the latter, but not the former. If you solve the commercial data privacy issue here, the entire problem is solved, because it is the root cause.

We don't need a law that prevents the government from buying records about your internet traffic. We need a law that prevents companies from selling it to anyone.

> If you solve the commercial data privacy issue here ... because it is the root cause.

I think many agree that this is a fundamental part of the problem but the article is about the NSA who has been known to gather a massive amount of information on the public through entirely their own means. But no doubt destroying surveillance capitalism will be a big win for the privacy, security, and safety of the public. From the government, foreign adversaries, and other members of the public alike. But the war will not be won despite victory in a major battle.

> We don't need a law that prevents the government from buying records about your internet traffic.

You're right. We shouldn't need a law and this will likely come down to a court case that would make explicit the spirit part. As government entities are not allowed to obtain evidence via means that an average citizen would. Which is the entire point. If the gov would need a warrant to collect that data themselves, they need a warrant to elicit that evidence (distinctly different from evidence freely and voluntarily being given to them). Meaning they need a warrant to buy the evidence.

> We need a law that prevents companies from selling it to anyone.

We need laws to prevent the collection in the first place.

> We need laws to prevent the collection in the first place.

Agreed, when possible. But the vast majority of this information is just generated from the activities inherent to doing business and it's always possible to prevent it from being collected at all.

I think it's generally okay and expected that businesses have information related to my interactions with them. But I think people don't expect or like the idea of that information being shared with third parties who didn't need to be involved.

The reason we cannot agree is because you refuse to acknowledge the direction of action. There is a difference if you report to the cops and if the cops come to you and ask you to report. These are completely different. You taking action: okay. Cops taking action: needs due process. Full stop.

> The 4th is about preventing the government from abusing their power to compel.

Let's get the 4th in here to so we actually read it and not from memory

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th is in part about government abusing its power, and that's true for all amendments. But it is clear that the 4th is about protecting information. I do not think it is hard to read as "The government is not allowed to collect information on people without warrants and without due probable cause." It clearly has a legal setting for this given that it is what is cited to prohibit wiretapping[0] and I'll even quote Justice Potter[1]

> For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

Note that the stress here is on intention to have public and intention to have private. You are protected even if in the public but intending to be private. Surely Potter would believe that were one to walk to a secluded area to hold a phone conversation and the government followed to secretly listen in, that this would be within the protection of the 4th Amendment. Many people incorrectly assume that you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy out in public. You sure can and everyone does it. Bathrooms are an uncontestable example.

> Like a wanted poster and a bounty for information?

The government cannot print wanted posters without due process. Yes, I have no problem with this. The due process part is essential.

> The example I gave was a practical illustration of how silly reality would be if third-party-doctrine wasn't a thing.

There is a huge difference between someone coming to the government out of their own free will -- someone who is not under duress nor are they incentivized by payment -- than the government making a request. Action is important. The government here is making an explicit action to seek and gather information. Obviously I do not object to someone reporting a crime and I should not need repeat myself any further.

There's a reason this is different and you need to stop pigeonholing me into a completely irrelevant argument. Here's how this can be abused. The government (or "friend") creates a private corporation. Private corporation does everything that the government cannot do without getting a warrant. Private corporation then gives the information to gov. How is this not a loophole?

That's the thing. The government is __seeking__ information that it would normally require a warrant to obtain. Were companies to freely offer this information to the government, then that's a completely different scenario and precisely the one you keep arguing which no one disagrees with. But if the government takes action to elicit that information, (aka ACTION) then that is not the same thing as information volunteered.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

[1] https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/civicscontest/2019/b...

> There is a difference if you report to the cops and if the cops come to you and ask you to report. These are completely different.

So, when the police ask the public for information related to a crime, it should be illegal? I disagree. The police shouldn't be prohibited from asking anyone for help.

> I do not think it is hard to read as "The government is not allowed to collect information on people without warrants and without due probable cause."

It might be easy to read it that way, but that doesn't make your rephrasing a correct characterization of the writers intent. The 4th has never prohibited the government from collecting public information, information volunteered by the public, anything they observe in the course of their duties, or literally anything else that isn't compelled. The government has always collected these types of information, both now and at the time that this was written. The writers were aware that police need to collect information in their own investigations, and from other people, to do their job. This is why they specifically wrote what they did, and did not write your rephrasing.

> What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

Right, phone booths do not have any rights under the 4th. And if Charles Katz is in a phone booth, he expects the conversation to be as private as speaking in a phone booth is. But if Charles Katz gambling partners at the other end of the phone decided to snitch on him, that's legal for them to do, even if Charles Katz didn't want them to.

Make no mistake, Justice Potter is definitely not saying "if you tell someone about a crime, it's illegal for them to snitch". He's saying that there are situations in public spaces where privacy from direct government surveillance is expected. Phone booths, bathroom stalls, changing rooms, etc. These are public spaces with some expectations of privacy. But there's nowhere, anywhere, that other people are prohibited from talking about you to the police.

> The government (or "friend") creates a private corporation. Private corporation does everything that the government cannot do without getting a warrant. Private corporation then gives the information to gov. How is this not a loophole?

Because the government has a monopoly on the use of force. If people working for a private corporation searched or seized information from others by force, it would be a crime. Data brokers do not use force to obtain their data. There is no search or seizure happening when you volunteer your data to a data broker or their affiliates.

> So, when the police ask the public for information related to a crime, it should be illegal?

Absolutely not. I'm not sure how you don't get this. It's been explained several times.

Police asking: fine

Police offering bounties: needs oversight

Police sitting in police station and citizen walks in to volunteer information: fine

Police go to private corporation and pay for data: needs oversight

Police compel company to give data: needs oversight

You treat these as if they are all the same, but they are not.