SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
News from the USA's State of Washington via komonews.com!
The friendly government folks in King County, Washington, have been caught buying data on local shoppers and mining it to find the home addresses of freeloading scallywags who are likely to own a pet without also having purchased a matching permission slip.
This is one small example of how the big nose of government can end up in unpleasant, uncomfortable places when it is let off its leash. It is also an illustration of how any entity can target and locate people of specific demographics via purchase and exploitation of "private" bulk data derived from common customers' commerce.
I have a strong preference to use only cash for in-person transactions and refuse the use of so-called loyalty or discount cards, which should make such data mining much more difficult, particularly as the numbers of like-minded folks increase.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:06AM
The corporation selling the data is consenting to its release to the government. The violators consented to the data's release to the corporation. There was no forced search, so there are no 4th Amendment issues.
This story is a good way to market to people who don't understand why privacy is important, but I think what the government is actually doing here is clever and not ethically wrong. It's not low, like sending undercover officers to drug addiction support groups (which I have no idea if that regularly happens by the way; my hope is it doesn't), and it's not destroying anyone's life by throwing them in jail, again like the drug way. All it's doing is fining assholes who don't think they need to contribute to their communities by paying for the externalities their stinky, barking, shitting, breeding, useless animals inflict on the people who live near them. They're not bad people, but they are doing something wrong, and they deserve to get caught. They'll pay the fine, whine about it, go on with their lives, and now the community has more money to send people around capturing the feral cats and dogs that exist because these assholes probably didn't spay or neuter the fucking animals they're illegally keeping. Pun intended.
Oh, and to the guy who posted earlier, who doesn't pay the $25 monthly apartment fee for his cat? Fuck you. You're making everyone else in your apartment complex pay for the damage your cat is causing to your apartment. That fee is less than $300 a year, you cheapskate asshole. Do you also stiff waiters and cab drivers on their tips? No? Well then why are you stiffing your neighbors?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:06AM
Wow, you're clearly voting for Trump. It's a wrongheaded policy to look at every single thing as something that must be taxed to pay "a fair share" of the costs. It adds overhead and administrative costs that are killing our economy.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:44PM
Wow, you're clearly voting for Trump.
Was I just a victim of Poe's Law? It's Republicans who are against regulation, not Democrats.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @05:45AM
There was no forced search, so there are no 4th Amendment issues.
Wrong; that's merely what our ignorant courts have ruled. In a society where you must, in practice, surrender much of your information over to corporations, this logic is 100% unworkable and enables the government to bypass the 4th amendment in a startling number of cases. The courts need to recognize that information corporations hand over about normal people is not admissible in court unless the government obtained a warrant, regardless of the corporation's consent; what matters is the consent of the person to whom the data pertains to. Otherwise, you are effectively advocating for a society where there are very few practical limits on the government's power. That might be fine to you if you're an authoritarian, but it's not fine to me.
but I think what the government is actually doing here is clever and not ethically wrong.
It's obvious and unethical.
They're not bad people, but they are doing something wrong, and they deserve to get caught.
Terrorists also deserve to get caught, but not at the expense of our liberties.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:40AM
In a society where you must, in practice, surrender much of your information over to corporations
I wasn't aware Walmart no longer accepted cash for pet food.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @12:05PM
You're missing the point. Even if that's true in this specific instance, my larger point stands. We give up lots of information to corporations, and oftentimes there's practically no choice. And even if there is a choice, it doesn't stand to reason that the government should be able to get that information, so whatever point you had is meaningless to begin with. Quit being disingenuous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:53PM
True; law and/or underlying system architecture will need to change in some areas to prevent wild abuses [kieranhealy.org]. However, we as individuals still have a lot of choice in regards to how much information we release to sticky-fingered corporations. Cellular phones can have the battery blocked with a paper shim until needed; we can refuse to use odious products like Facebook (and now Gmail) and work to convince others to find alternatives; we can use cash as often as possible, and even use cash to pay for pre-paid credit cards nowadays (no personal information needed beyond the purchase ZIP code for MC/VISA et al branded cards - avoid GreenDot, etc.). Businesses that provide non-PO BOX alternate mailing addreses exist, and usually charge very reasonable rates.
It might be nice to imagine a world where the information that pertains to an individual belongs to that individual, but the world has plenty of scheming jerks with little regard for law and morality. The best practice regardless is to control your own information to the greatest practical extent precisely due to the existence of evil organizations such as Google/Alphabet, Facebook, the NSA, etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday November 06 2016, @06:42AM
You're making everyone else in your apartment complex pay for the damage your cat is causing to your apartment. That fee is less than $300 a year
In a reasonable apartment building you will get the carpet replaced and walls repainted if you rent for longer than two years. This means that the longer you stay, the LESS the "damage" becomes, as cats are not very likely to destroy concrete walls and steel pipes. However the $300/yr pet fee works against that logic - the longer you stay, the more you owe for repairs! As I said, after 2 years the cost of "cat repairs" becomes exactly zero.
The landlord charges him $300/yr just because he can. There is no other reason, unless those apartments are monthly rentals. But those are a completely different kettle of fish, and they cost more to compensate. Humans are usually the worst offenders anyway.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday November 06 2016, @04:47PM
Cats claw the woodwork. Male cats mark their territory, and it's damned hard to get the smell out. That's why I don't mind paying my landlord that extra $25; it's my responsibility.
The cat owner above is an irresponsible asshole.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by BeaverCleaver on Sunday November 06 2016, @07:30PM
The guy who owns the property can make whatever rules he wants for his property. If you don't like it, you are free to live somewhere else. Or buy your own property, and make your own rules. Or should big government step in and make a rule about excessive surcharges imposed by landlords?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday November 07 2016, @12:25AM
Curiously, you are arguing on the side of Snotnose, who refuses to pay the $25/mo for his cat. You are saying:
Or should big government step in and make a rule about excessive surcharges imposed by landlords?
You are implying that you don't want the big government to step in and regulate minor details of private contracts. I agree, BTW. But from that follows that the individuals and companies should be free to sort these issues out amongst themselves. Snotnose does exactly that. His landlord says "pay up!" and the renter says "go to hell!" Why should I, or you, or the government interfere? The two sides are competent enough to review the issue, measure the cat up, ascertain the damage, if there is one, and if necessary, when Snotnose leaves the building, he will pay for whatever he and the landlord may negotiate to compensate for the cat.
There is no moral law that can force you to pay whatever the other guy wants you to pay. I can charge you $100500 for reading this - will you pay? Of course, not. It all depends on your willingness to fairly pay for something that you consider useful, and on the readiness of the other guy to enforce his contract rules. My demand would be unreasonable in your opinion. Other may say that $25 for a cat is equally unreasonable. In the end, it's all about what the two beings agree to do, not what some paper says. Have you seen those signs near roads that say "55", "60", or some other funny numbers? Well, very few agree to obey those limits - but if caught, they will pay the price. Same principle here. The landlord can demand his $25, but if the renter extends one of his fingers and leaves, is the landlord better off? Now he has a vacant apartment that needs to be fixed up for the next renter - which has to be found. Many rules exist only to milk those who are too soft to object. If the Snotnose's cat is sufficiently educated, the damage from it is far less than from one 1 y/o child - and no landlord would dare to demand that the parents kick their baby out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06 2016, @02:13PM
Won't someone think of our poor dogfood eating senior citizens?