The Feds Are Skirting the 4th Amendment by Buying Data from Tech Companies
Government agencies are increasingly purchasing private data, including geolocation information, to conduct surveillance without warrants, raising significant privacy concerns about circumventing Fourth Amendment protections.
Read original article
Government agencies are increasingly bypassing Fourth Amendment protections by purchasing private data to conduct surveillance on citizens without warrants. The Fourth Amendment ensures individuals are secure from unreasonable searches, requiring government agents to obtain a warrant based on probable cause. However, agencies like the IRS, ICE, and the CDC have utilized taxpayer funds to buy access to commercial databases containing geolocation data from millions of Americans' cellphones. For instance, the IRS Criminal Investigation unit acquired such data for significant criminal cases but later terminated the contract due to lack of useful leads. Similarly, ICE spent over $1 million to track undocumented immigrants, while the CDC used $420,000 to monitor compliance with movement restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defense Intelligence Agency has also admitted to purchasing geolocation metadata and searching it for American movement histories without considering the need for a warrant. Additionally, the DEA has contracted private companies for personal information that would typically require a warrant, spending substantial amounts on data that could have been obtained through existing agreements. This trend raises concerns about privacy and the extent to which government agencies are willing to circumvent legal protections to gather information.
- Government agencies are buying private data to avoid warrant requirements.
- The IRS, ICE, and CDC have all purchased geolocation data from private companies.
- The Defense Intelligence Agency has searched commercial databases for American movement data.
- The DEA has contracted private entities for personal information, spending millions unnecessarily.
- This practice raises significant privacy concerns regarding government surveillance.
Related
It's never been easier for the cops to break into your phone
Law enforcement, including the FBI, uses advanced tools to access suspects' phones rapidly. Recent events highlight agencies' access to phone-hacking tools like Cellebrite, sparking debates on privacy versus law enforcement requirements.
What "consent" looks like for the DEA and TSA
DEA and TSA collaborate to seize travelers' cash using informers and airport checkpoints. Video shows DEA agents ignoring refusals to search, sparking a lawsuit against illegal searches and seizures. Travelers resist systemic targeting.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.
Are Geofence Warrants Headed for Extinction?
Geofence warrants face scrutiny for potential Fourth Amendment violations. Google will stop storing location data, impacting their use. Public pressure and privacy concerns may limit their future effectiveness.
6 comments> and paying an Amtrak official for travel reservation information. In the latter case, the DEA already had an agreement in place under which Amtrak Police would provide that information for free, but the agency instead spent $850,000 over two decades paying somebody off
I wonder if this was corruption or plain incompetence/miscommunication - seems like if you have lots of "vendors" that you transact with, if you don't use some centralized system of truth, then you're liable to have stuff like this happen occasionally.
Also, if this data is for sale then it's a reasonable bet that other governments have bought it too (i.e., Russia, China, etc). Is that "legal", then? What's the difference?
Alternately, we could demand that the government get a warrant before acquiring any/all personal info from any source, and prosecute any authority who violates this.
Of course enforcing either option would require a Supreme Court that gives a damn about the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and we learned from Snowden this is absolutely not the case.
Related
It's never been easier for the cops to break into your phone
Law enforcement, including the FBI, uses advanced tools to access suspects' phones rapidly. Recent events highlight agencies' access to phone-hacking tools like Cellebrite, sparking debates on privacy versus law enforcement requirements.
What "consent" looks like for the DEA and TSA
DEA and TSA collaborate to seize travelers' cash using informers and airport checkpoints. Video shows DEA agents ignoring refusals to search, sparking a lawsuit against illegal searches and seizures. Travelers resist systemic targeting.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.
Are Geofence Warrants Headed for Extinction?
Geofence warrants face scrutiny for potential Fourth Amendment violations. Google will stop storing location data, impacting their use. Public pressure and privacy concerns may limit their future effectiveness.