- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
"Unless your data is fully encrypted or stored locally by you, the government often can get it from a communications or computing company.
Traditionally, that required a court order. But increasingly, the government just buys it from data brokers who bought it from the adtech industry."
“this corporate-government surveillance partnership has mostly evaded judicial review.”
“Police can also track people whose devices have been inside an immigration attorney’s office, a reproductive health clinic, or a mental health facility”
“The Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act is bipartisan, commonsense law that would ban the U.S. government from purchasing data it would otherwise need a warrant to acquire. Moreover, with the invasive surveillance law Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set to expire in December 2023, Congress has a chance to include a databroker limits in any bill that seeks to renew it.”
Yes, and per the definition, this is not a biometric. Or is there some way around this?
There was an article a few days ago about the Western world moving to universal digital IDs verified with biometrics to replace passports and that is quite significantly different than a picture I took 4 years ago on a bad hair day pre COVID.