352
US judge rules: if you can't prove damages, car-makers can continue to intercept and record customers' mobile phone activity. (therecord.media)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (9 children)

The state is just spying via a proxy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Do you actually literally believe that (in the context of law), or is that just rhetorical speech?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Correct and it is not illegal. It is an invasion of privacy but the law doesn't prohibit that. Amendment 4 covers the Government doing it without the permission of the person who controls the information. It refers to "can the Government bust in or sneak in to get info", not "can the Government make clandestine deals to buy info for surveillance purposes".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    It's literally what's happening.

    Texas used the same concept to empower private people to sue abortion providers and receivers under civil law since they couldn't do it criminally.

    The country as a whole has done it for a long time with cellphone data, the five eyes alliance, etc.

    They have access to information they're barred from getting directly themselves, and they get it from private companies. Spying by proxy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If the purpose of collecting the data by private companies is to somehow make money, do you think that sharing this data, or conclusions based on this data, somehow manages to exclude access of governmental agencies? I've never gotten the impression that CIA/NSA would ever willingly play nice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago*

    This is getting off-track again—

    Government agencies paying private companies for your information, or even just asking for it in exchange for something or nothing is legal. That's because nothing was searched unreasonably (because consent was given by the controller of the information) nor was anything seized against the controller's will.

    You are not in the picture. The information might be about you but you don't control the information, the car company does. From a legal standpoint, you are irrelevant for the purposes of Amendment 4 protection.

    Amendment 4 protects the controller of the information from Government seizure but does not protect the subject of that information. Privacy laws are what are intended to protect the subjects of information. There is some overlap of course. For example, your computer has lots of information about you and what you did in the past. You would be both the subject of the information and the controller (since it's stored on your computer).

    Please remember, I am describing what the law is, not what it should be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent