Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Surveillance: too cheap to meter

Journal by quietus

Either we slap a stiff tax on surveillance data, or we learn to love the panopticon.

Surveillance: too cheap to meter | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 14 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:20PM (6 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:20PM (#1222518) Journal

    The TelCo needs to know who made what calls and when for billing and the customers expect to be able to audit that information. So that information needs to exists for at least a billing cycle and probably longer.

    Taxing the collection of data that is necessary to run the business doesn't seem like it would work to me. It's not like they can switch to a less harmful alternative for that information which is what those type of taxes try to encourage.

    Instead I think we just need to make illegal the loophole of the government being able to purchase data they are not allowed to collect on their own. If they need a warrant to access my phone records for free then they should need a warrant to purchase those records too.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:26PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:26PM (#1222522)

    How do you prevent government from just opening a corporation that purchases the same information? Even if it's not admissable in court, LEOs have shown time and time again that they are very willing to use parallel construction to make cases.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:45PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 17 2022, @04:45PM (#1222528) Journal

      At some point that corporation would need to give the info to the government. We would make that transfer illegal without a warrant.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17 2022, @07:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17 2022, @07:25PM (#1222573)

        "Illegal" doesn't stop the transfer, just using it in court...

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 17 2022, @11:07PM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 17 2022, @11:07PM (#1222619) Journal

    Instead I think we just need to make illegal the loophole of the government being able to purchase data they are not allowed to collect on their own.

    Anybody in the Party putting up a bill? Anybody on the ballot making it an election issue?

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday February 19 2022, @07:22AM

    by RS3 (6367) on Saturday February 19 2022, @07:22AM (#1223065)

    Instead I think we just need to make illegal the loophole of the government being able to purchase data they are not allowed to collect on their own.

    How about we charge them with receiving stolen property? How about good old wiretap laws? I'm sure there are many more applicable charges.

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday February 19 2022, @06:48PM

    by quietus (6328) on Saturday February 19 2022, @06:48PM (#1223187) Journal

    One of the other legs of the article is that surveillance is core to the business model of Big Tech (Google, Amazon). They do not care whether the government is the buyer and, looking at the size of the ad industry, government mostly isn't the buyer either.