Again, this comes down to "Third Party Doctrine" - effectively (in the US), you have a right to privacy until you give your data to an unrelated third party.

For example, if I want to give you $100, I can go to your house and hand you cash and it should be "private". Unfortunately, drug laws also add some exceptions. :(

Alternatively, if I give you $100 via check, paypal, venmo, stripe, or any other service, I no longer have an "expectation of privacy" and therefore law enforcement can request it and do what they want.

Now apply that to banks, cell carriers, ISPs, libraries, traffic cameras, your frequent flier account, and any website you visit. There was recently ruling - in California, I believe - where spousal privilege was pierced because a husband and wife discussed the situation via text losing their "expectation of privacy".

If we want to restore anything resembling privacy, we need to kill Third Party Doctrine and that can ONLY happen if the law changes.

And to preempt the "well actually" folks.. No, it started 50+ years before the PATRIOT Act. Some of it tracks back to RICO and organized crime. No, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, there's plenty of case law that refines/contradicts it.

Check out "Habeas Data: Privacy vs. the Rise of Surveillance Tech" for some background on this in the US.

This should be equally as illegal as “dragnet” surveillance.

In that case, the onus here is on the private companies supplying these data.

Use them to buy data on the legislators who won’t vote to ban the practice. Release said data publicly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/dodging-the-thought-poli...

Why would it be on the vendor to enforce the government to follow the law?

As I understand the intent and spirit of the Constitution, it's already illegal.

I wish the courts would address this and make that interpretation explicit. Who has standing to challenge it and who has pockets deep enough to fight it?

The whole "this is done with your consent" thing these scumbags always trot out is such a farce.

I'll give an example - I'm in CA, which means I'm supposed to be able to opt-out. After digging around the Peacock mobile app trying to figure out why it was charging me despite not ever remembering signing up for it (probably some dumb dark pattern), and I noticed a few menus deep in settings was "opt-out" check box, which was really confusing looking. I clicked on it, and get a big screen of legal jargon and a big green "agree" button. To someone who doesn't scroll all the way down they might think they're opting out - but no, it gets worse.

There are 2 hidden fields way down, and ANOTHER opt-out toggle that's unchecked (of course). You toggle that on, you're good right?

No. That button does nothing. If you read the text you must click the link BELOW that button to submit an "opt-out request." After several screens and asking for way too much information, you finally get to where you want to be - only for peacock to tell you "someone will be reaching out to you via email to confirm", which I'm sure if I don't respond in a timely manner will opt me right the fuck back in (if I'm even opted out yet, it's not clear from the UI).

It's dystopian, and likely criminal.

They are buying your data with your tax money!

It's the trickle-down economy - your money trickles down to the corporations which gather data on you.

Related Wired article: How the Pentagon Learned to use Targeted Ads to Find Its Targets--and Vladimir Putin.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-pentagon-learned-targeted-ad...

Basically a proxy war.