> Rather than begin applying for warrants, the government has circumvented the ruling in many cases, buying up GPS data from companies that consumers largely believe are tracking them purely for advertising purposes.
> “They’re buying data. That’s what they’re doing,” says Warren Davidson, a Republican congressperson from Ohio. “They’re structuring markets to collect the data and they’re circumventing the Fourth Amendment. We need to turn that off.”
This is also a big part of the problem, imo. It is too easy for apps to request a cocktail of permissions (including location data) when an app is installed; then users never revisit those permissions after the app is used once.
Meanwhile the app is constantly tracking users locations. And selling it to third parties, which sell it to gov’t orgs.
How can mobile devices be updated to make users more aware of these problems? Maybe iOS and Android can, once a month, pull up a dossier of you on an app-by-app basis or something.
Get ready for worse. Microsoft is not only forcing OEMs to put a proprietary Copilot key on their keyboards, but they’re about to make Copilot and its agent launch on startup by default. I’m sure all the data they suck up will find its way to invasive ads, data brokers, and the government.
Why does Microsoft hate it's users? Most of us pay for PCs with windows on them, and have upgraded to Windows 11 systems in the last couple years. Well I know I did last year, anyway. Well those who don't obviously choose to use something else.
Anyway Microsoft seems to just be making things less and less open, and less and less private as we go along. For some reason, they seem to want to just get rid of their entire userbase. However for a person with accessibility needs, it's hard to just up and switch to Linux.
In newer versions of Android, apps which are not opened by the user have their permissions automatically and periodically revoked. So they no longer have the permissions, and when reopened, the user needs to grant the permissions again interactively. Presumably to solve this.
Thats great but their is a boat load of permissions that Android allow that never require user acceptance and are never revoked. Total disablement when not used would be much better.
Damn I guess we shouldn't do any small step to improve society somewhat unless we can overhaul systems entirely all at once!
Personally, I'd prefer to see us fight for successively smaller and smaller blast radii than simply hoping and praying the blasts disappeared entirely.
Small steps get us things like pop ups on every webpage or TSA. You'll just slowly create a bureaucratic dystopia. We need giant sweeping reform of privacy laws in the US and a restoration of the 4th amendment.
Not in the context of the government buying the data, they'll just buy it from google instead of shadowgovt.databroker.com. It's a red herring, a feel good feature that just limit's googles competition and doesn't really change the information collected on us.
Unless you're somehow claiming that your browsing history was used to train an AI for identifying tanks or terror connections, in which case for the former that makes no sense and for the latter the data is so emulsified that it can't really be considered your data any more than you could lay claim to a cat recognizer that was trained on a billion cat photos, some of which happen to be from your blog.
(And that's even assuming one accepts the premise that Google's cache of browsing data was used to train the AI that the Israeli government is using. In reality, that information is deeply firewalled and doesn't see the light of day for other applications).
You're arguing in bad faith, making this about browser history, this is about data collection of the sensor array that is your smart phone device, two very different things. It's hilarious to claim that what google is doing by disabling app access matters at all when google created the problem and profits from it in a really shady way all the while pretending to be doing you a service by protecting you from those 'shady' apps (and 3rd party app stores like say.. f-droid). And then using that data to _literally_ kill people. I'm not saying those apps aren't shady, I'm saying google pretending to protect you is shady.
Sorry; I just don't follow. Google isn't "protecting" me from F-droid; I have it on my Android right now. Nor is Google using cellphone telemetry to kill people. Nor is Google (AFAIK; if there's evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it) providing cellphone data to nations that are targeting them for death (Google doesn't even own a cell tower deployment). Nor is geotargeting people based on cellphone data a system limited to Google's architecture; that's a feature of cellphones, because they're little radios we carry in our pockets that continuously broadcast to a mesh network in an attempt to allow connection to it.
I don't think I'm arguing in bad faith, but I am trying to argue with someone who seems to be operating from a source of facts I don't have access to. You seem to be upset that Google makes cellphones? What am I missing here?
>Sorry; I just don't follow. Google isn't "protecting" me from F-droid
Yes, they give you a warning to scare off normal users and you have to enable installing from 3rd party sources. My point isn't that they're "protecting" you at all, my point is it's security theater.
>Nor is Google (AFAIK; if there's evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it) providing cellphone data to nations that are targeting them for death
Various subsystems on android are controlled by Google and they enable Google to collect and consolidate all of the telemetry/usage data etc (effectively google is root on your phone).
This information is used to select targets and kill people:
"Since 2002, and routinely since 2009, the U.S. government has carried out deliberate and premeditated killings of suspected terrorists overseas. In some cases, including that of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the targets were placed on “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon. According to news accounts, the targeted killing program has expanded to include “signature strikes” in which the government does not know the identity of individuals, but targets them based on “patterns” of behavior that have never been made public. The New York Times has reported that the government counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
You're not bringing much evidence to the table to single out Google for your frustration. Targeted tracking of individuals with cellphones is enabled by every cellphone, by virtue of the fact that it's a radio and signal strength and connection is logged and forwarded by the towers themselves; there's nothing special Google is doing to modify that process. So I don't know why we should focus on Google and not, say, T-Mobile or AT&T or TracFone or the entire cellular infrastructure.
You seem to be alleging that Google is brokering third-party access to data stored on the phone or generated by the phone (beyond the telemetry that's natural to every cellphone), but there's no evidence to support that hypothesis. Have I misunderstood what you're alleging?
Google's value in tracking is in providing services to users with the tracked data and (in the ads arm) linking advertisements to potential interested users (which is a system they broker internally).
They don't hand data to third-parties; third-parties hand data to Google, and Google might kick out answers to questions, but it does not kick out answers to questions like "Hey, is this person a terrorist?" There's no program for that. Hell, Google doesn't even kick out answers to questions like "Would Bob like to buy my shoes," the entire ad network is architected to minimize the ways an advertiser could glean the identity of a specific user who saw their ad.
My understanding (as an iPhone user) is that iOS has 1) a Location permission that a user has to grant to an app, and 2) a Background Refresh permission that’s required for apps to run when they aren’t in the foreground (+/- some grace period I think), and if these are enabled it should prevent apps from gathering this data - whether for advertising or just general fuckery.
Is this inaccurate? I would be very interested to know. Obv this won’t prevent Apple from tracking you, which is important if they are part of your threat model.
I'm on LineageOS, and not sure if it's a baseline android feature or not, but it does occasionally bring up a notification about which apps are using location access.
Phone bootloaders are rapidly becoming unavailable in the unlocked state due to Chinese laws that say bootloaders must be locked for their region. Pixels are the majority of the US general purpose computing market in the mobile form factor simply because they haven't unified their global product variants yet.
Naturally I don't think I care too much or I would care less. I believe I care an appropriate amount. Unstable leadership doesn't seem likely to provide stable software. I'm not going to invest time and energy learning something that could fall apart tomorrow.
I don't think everyone should take my approach but there are circumstances I deem extreme enough that it's worth mentioning so that other people can investigate and make informed decisions. I specifically didn't go into detail so that people who don't care don't have to think as much about it.
It shouldn't be. People need to bloody care about the nitty gritty. I'm tired of consumers and investors who know jack and shit about what it is people are leveraging their capital to do.
Think about how different the world could be if we shut off the spigot to companies that acted like asshats.
Sure, but I think "There is an asshat in an open-source project filling a needed spot in the mobile OS ecosystem is different than "Apple is funneling Chinese citizen communications to the CCCP" or "Google is helping the military develop facial-recognition killer drones".
Oh yeah, they don't want to get a warrant. I even saw something that said if congress doesn't reauthorize it, it will just keep going, because it can be recertified by the FISC. LOL couldn't remember what it was, but found it.
https://www.wired.com/story/section-702-vote-fails-trump-fis...
“ and disrupt international drug cartels who are looking to smuggle fentanyl into our nation,” they said.”
Just a totally absurd statement. Drug traffickers pour across the border in droves, daily. Anybody who supported this && does not support securing the border is a corrupt weasel and an enemy of Americans.
We could also, ya know... enforce our drug laws and punish folks in possession of fentanyl. But no, lets enable warrant-less spying on American citizens instead.
Yeah, Prohibition of substances has gone so well this far. Why hasn't anyone thought of punishing drug users? That has always worked in history!
How do people like you not realize the ONLY solution is to let adults have bodily autonomy and stop trying to police what they do in the privacy of their own home.
At this point many in the US have experienced or heard about cities like Portland where removal of prohibition did not result in a utopia, but instead a city full of meth zombies. Granted Portland is probably the worst city to hold this experiment in*, but regardless at this point there are many people with first hand experience who definitely think prohibition is a lesser evil. Doesn't mean its the correct path, but I believe neither is it simple to say prohibition doesn't work. It clearly doesn't work as good as perfect treatment, but it remains to be seen if e.g. the US could actually execute on something better.
> stop trying to police what they do in the privacy of their own home
I think if most folks used in their own home Portland's experiment would have been a smashing success. Yet nobody really uses fentanyl, meth, etc, without their life and home situation falling apart. Thus the idea of hard-drug users doing so in the privacy of their own home feels a bit unrealistic.
*Mental health care / services are among the worst here, and there are insufficient treatment centers and methods of enforcement, on top of the general lack of quality execution plans the local gov't has demonstrated as of late. The complete lack of any enforcement has led to predictable droves of addicts wondering the streets.
>Yet nobody really uses fentanyl, meth, etc, without their life and home situation falling apart. Thus the idea of hard-drug users doing so in the privacy of their own home feels a bit unrealistic.
Equally, the notion of "just stop doing it because it's banned" clearly, empirically does not work. It is and will forever be easy to score drugs.
Prohibition is a money burning pit, funneling money to organizations that are built to torment the lower classes that use substances while everyone here knows that the wealthy don't ever have to follow the same rules.
Even the proponents of prohibition agree with me. Maybe look in to the real reason prohibition even exists as a """solution""". Here's a quote for you:
"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
- Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman
>Mental health care / services are among the worst here, and there are insufficient treatment centers and methods of enforcement, on top of the general lack of quality execution plans the local gov't has demonstrated as of late. The complete lack of any enforcement has led to predictable droves of addicts wondering the streets.
Yeah, because as you note it was a half measure where a full one was needed.
Generally I agree with the notion that hard drug use is not tenable with being functional in society, we just disagree on the solution.
As you note, mental health care, rehab, treatment facilities all need to be revamped. This is not a problem solved by prohibition.
We need to tackle inequality and a large majority of the suffering that leads to serious drug use is fixed, way up stream of the users.
We have worse than gilded age inequality. 3 people own more wealth than half the US combined. Maybe if so many weren't forced to work or starve, there would be reduced demand for unhealthy coping mechanisms like we both probably agree harder drugs generally are.
My whole point is best demonstrated by one throwaway line in the wire, "you think i sleep under a fucking bridge sober?"
Poverty is the real issue here. Not drugs. It never was drugs.
On topic: Warrantless searches are 'needed' to "stem the distribution of fentanyl" the same reason drug use has always been targeted. Here's a quote from one of the progenitors of the idiotic prohibition mindset (in the US at least)
>"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” - Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman
Spoiler alert: They don't give a fuck about drugs or those dying from drugs.
They use the specter of "drugs" just like child abuse and terrorism - as eternal battles that need to be fought. How? By ameliorating the conditions that lead to drug abuse and child abuse and terrorism, like poverty and war?
Of course not, they use them to erode our rights under the guise of protection.
You are not the only victim as a drug user (unless you are a loner), people around you are impacted, you are not your best self when you are intoxicated.
Distribution certainly impacts more than one person and heavy handed punishment is the best way to deter it.
Possession is voting for distribution and while not as destructive as the scalability of high profit margin black market businesses.
Should individuals have the freedom to vote for something that harms other individuals and society as a whole?
You are really pushing the definition of "victim" by claiming that being in the same space as someone who "isn't their best self" is something that deserves government intervention...
I think they are actually (intentionally) pushing the definition of "isn't their best self", where "not best self" may means things like "yells racial slurs", "stabs stranger" (etc), "shoots random people", etc.
Yeah all those life sentences for meth, heroin and cocaine distribution have really done a number on our drug problem!!!! /s
Our country's drug use continues to go up despite having the most draconian punishments for drug dealing of western nations. Perhaps the problem has zero to do with punishment and is moreso a reflection of our very unhealthy society, physically and mentally.. just a though.
Don't worry the reddit and HN experts (morons) calling for public executions for drug dealers will get their way eventually and we will finally have our drug free Utopia!!!!
I think about this a lot. It seems obvious to me that drug abuse (and a lot of crime in general) is only a proximate problem (right term?), in that it’s just a symptom of something else, and so a punitive solution isn’t going to do a whole hell of a lot even if it worked well (which I also believe it is obvious that it does not).
When I look at the large portion of society - shit, humanity - that believes punishment is the fix, I have to think that they are either stupid or dishonest. Or that I am not right. Are these folks just smarter than me, and realize that the N-th order solutions - like ensuring humans have their basic needs met - are too expensive or otherwise impossible and we should pretend that incarceration (which isnt just cheap in the US - it’s a money maker) is the way forward?
There is a chain of violence that goes back from most street drugs. There is no victimless usage of drugs - you are directly damaging a lot of the US and almost all of Latin America at this point.
While you did qualify “street drugs” in sentence #1, you didn’t in #2, and so I have to disagree that the stinky plants in my garden are damaging to anyone :)
You know, after a certain point black pill rhetoric just becomes inane and boring. "The system is bad, so just give up and do nothing." yaaaawn get up off your ass and do something instead.
Not only are they voting on it but there is bipartisan support for the Biggs Amendment, which tied at 212 votes. This is one of those issues that is so close that calling your rep would actually make a legitimate difference.
Do you really think that the multitrillion dollar industry that thrives on surveilling the public would allow their private takeover of the US government to be thwarted by a few phone calls by civilians?
This sort of surveillance power (the ability to peer into Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, AWS, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T in realtime without a warrant) is the sort of thing that allows them to blackmail or extort every member of congress, every member of law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, or general in the country.
There is no amount of political organizing that can usefully be brought to bear against the most powerful organization in the country (the CIA/IC) once they have obtained this capability (and they have, for years now).
lol it was 212 to 212, that’s exactly what almost happened! And the only reason this passed today is that Republicans think they can kill it in 2 years.
I happen to live in the home state of Senator Wyden. I'm pretty sure that all my reps are against all the surveillance anyway, but don't worry I'll make the call.
The purpose of a Motion to Reconsider is to delay an approved motion from taking effect until the end of the following business day if an absentee can be convinced to join the quorum:
Thirteen members did not vote on that roll call. Any one of them could tip the balance:
Babin Republican Texas Not Voting
Gallego Democratic Arizona Not Voting
González-Colón Republican Puerto Rico Not Voting
Grijalva Democratic Arizona Not Voting
Lesko Republican Arizona Not Voting
Luetkemeyer Republican Missouri Not Voting
Mooney Republican West Virginia Not Voting
Payne Democratic New Jersey Not Voting
Perez Democratic Washington Not Voting
Plaskett Democratic Virgin Islands Not Voting
Radewagen Republican American Samoa Not Voting
Strickland Democratic Washington Not Voting
Wittman Republican Virginia Not Voting
All but one of these representatives did not vote at all today, which means they are likely not in Washington. Hopefully one or more can be convinced to fly there in the next 48 hours.
The exception is Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who was on the floor today and voted on every measure except the Biggs Amendment. This means she effectively voted against it. Her district covers the southwestern part of Washington State (Pacific, Chehailis, Lewis, Clark, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Cowlitz Counties). If you live there, give her a call at (202) 225-3536 (from here: https://clerk.house.gov/Members/G000600 )
Is this as wild as it seems? It sounds like a free for all in terms of getting communications data from all US residents. I hope it's clear what
"between Americans and foreigners overseas" means and that it doesn't include simply messages going through a foreign server at some point or something like that.
This version is substantially better than the previous versions that didn't pass.
I consider dropping the warrant requirement from the last attempt as not much of a loss, since the previous FISA applications were being rubber-stamped anyway.
Forcing another vote in two years is better than the original 8, and better than the failed compromise of 5 in my book. Not as good as it should have been (not reauthorizing at all), better than it could have been.
1) A bad system of elections that tends to result in only two viable parties that substantially differ in policy positions from their own voters. Our system of elections drives that outcome.
2) Cowardice. Being personally punished (say, by losing an election) for problems caused by too much spying or too much military spending or too much surveillance is vanishingly unlikely. Being punished because something bad happens and maybe that thing you voted against would have prevented it? That’s possible.
3) Probably blackmail campaigns by various law enforcement and spy agencies, aimed at politicians. I very much doubt that sort of thing stopped after Hoover was gone, or that the FBI was the only agency to engage in it. I guess the “how we got here” for this part is failing to aggressively dismantle the whole tainted edifice and start from scratch back when that was feasible, and failure to keep those agencies on an extremely tight leash.
> Being punished because something bad happens and maybe that thing you voted against would have prevented it? That’s possible.
Do you have any examples of this? Nobody was politically punished for allowing 9/11 to happen. There are countless examples of bad things happening for which nobody was politically punished. As far as I see, there's an almost complete lack of consequences in politics.
4) The amount of money and corruption in politics means that the people who are better at sucking up to donors end up winning. These people are also not really interested in governing, but are interested in accumulating wealth and power.
Are you sure about that? There's a large amount of people who don't give a shit about privacy because they've "got nothing to hide" and are convinced that surveillance should, and does, only happen to those people who deserve it.
Our institutions of government are so far removed from democratic control at this point that the content of this bill hardly even matters in the first place: they'll just break the "law" with impunity anyway, if Congress can't deliver what they want.
“The United States is at its greatest risk of terrorism in more than a decade following the horrific October 7th attack on Israel, and the [intelligence community] must focus attention and resources on that threat while continuing to stay ahead of China,”
Wouldn't the point of an "intelligence" service be to _prevent_ terrorist attacks? Then again, that would apparently frustrate their efforts at increasing their budget and access to American's data without a warrant. Well, as long as we're keeping pace with China, I guess.
Word on the street is that either Israel or the US is going to get hit by Iran within two weeks. I'm pleased that they pushed this through honestly instead of waiting for said attack to take advantage of the inevitably hysteria.
> Wouldn't the point of an "intelligence" service be to _prevent_ terrorist attacks?
Your frustration is clouding your judgment. The purpose of an intelligence service is to gather intelligence. Preventing acts of terrorism would be the mission of the Bureau of Counterterrorism, among others.
People bitch here on a constant basis about US 3-letter agencies. Which is fine I suppose, but the amount of bullshit FUD surrounding the bitching is almost embarrassing.
The tragedy of 9/11 was cited as a failure of the intelligence community as a whole, primary the TLAs, to work together. They know they are responsible, and they know they have to justify their budget in those same terms. The CIA, for one, also meddles in foreign affairs heavily. Presumably, they use active measures to dismantle terror networks. Also, it's not appropriate to view 11/7 as an attack that was hard to predict. At least, the border incursion was an eventuality that they should have been able to repel.
"The Soviet Union is at its greatest risk of invasion in more than half a century following the dramatic June 22nd attack by Germany, and the intelligence community must focus attention and resources on that threat while continuing to stay ahead of the United States."
"Britain is at its greatest risk of naval attack in more than a century following the devastating December 7th attack by Germany, and the intelligence community must focus attention and resources on that threat while continuing to stay ahead of Japan."
"France is at its greatest risk of revolution in more than a century following the tumultuous July 14th attack by the people, and the intelligence community must focus attention and resources on that threat while continuing to stay ahead of Britain."
"Russia is at its greatest risk of internal upheaval in more than a century following the dramatic October 25th attack by the Bolsheviks, and the intelligence community must focus attention and resources on that threat while continuing to stay ahead of Germany."
In an age where large tech companies gleefully comply to any request from the government already, or the government works with buying "public" information from data brokers to surveil US citizens without a warrant, this seems less horrible than it used to be, if only for the fact that it almost doesn't matter whether or not this passes, they already don't respect the law to begin with. We're at that phase.
This is the legal basis (FISA Section 702) for the program known as PRISM disclosed by Ed Snowden that allows the USG to pull customer data directly from large US cloud providers without a warrant.
> The government argues that Americans are not themselves being targeted and thus the wiretaps are legal.
How in the fuck does this ever pass Constitutional muster? Yet another reminder that the whole system is made of people (who are fallable). Doesn't matter what the Constitution says if the Congress/courts don't enforce it.
> But in a major victory for the Biden administration, House members voted down an amendment earlier in the day that would’ve imposed new warrant requirements on federal agencies accessing Americans’ 702 data.
Yet another reason it's unfortunate that our choices this year are going to be the same awful ones as 2020.
Too many people act like politics is a team sport. They're proud to vote for this guy's charisma/skin color or against that guy's impulsive nonsense, and then look past the very real problems of the guy they voted for.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
I hope I'm not on the wrong side of this one. I don't know what the appropriate amount of "political" is on a clearly political post.
I'm not here to argue for/against any particular candidate, but I would like to see a world where politics are approached with curiosity about solving individual issues and politicians are judged on their abilities to solve them, not which letter comes in the parenthesis after their names. The present cultishness is truly scary.
What could possibly go wrong with this? Not like it is like all the other privacy destroying legislation that is worded just vaguely enough that it can be exploited in a hundred different terrible ways. /s
I'm in Australia and unfortunately where ever the US goes in this stuff we (and many others) follow behind.
Looking at this and the "Five Guys Program" makes me think true democracy just isn't possible just like true socialism. Yet written laws were the foundations of America. Courts are supposed uphold the constitution. Bombs were dropped all over the world to spread "democracy" even in countries that never asked for it because they were already doing fine.
Democracy, socialism, ideas are seductive in the minds of the collective until it becomes warped overtime to resemble the minds of whoever is running it. In America's case its those with the most to lose or those with lot of capital. Why are they so paranoid? What do they fear?
We live in a "free democratic country" yet we need to be watched all the time and not have rights that was written up long time ago as fundamental ideological tenets to prevent becoming exactly as those countries that we blame and label on mainstream media as "unfree non-democratic inhumane country"?
"When you do business with authoritarian countries, you end up resembling them" quote has been realized. Sad situation for America but also the West.
We have to understand democracy as a continuously regenerating culture and set of institutions, not just that we vote once in a while.
The culture is about how much we actually care about democracy / believe it can actually work. I think this is still pretty strong in the US, compared to say Russia where everyone is pretty blackpilled on it, as their its completely illegitimately, whereas ours is highly flawed at the nat'l level and decent at the local level.
However, we've been in a civic engagement decline since the 1970's. See the book: "Bowling Alone" on the waning participation in gov't, civil society, and community organizations / clubs since then. Also Putman's latest "The Upswing"
Part of this is entropy: the post WWII solidarity was never going to last a few generations, and all orgs (US gov't) and codebase (constitution, US Code) get shittier over time.
However, a large part of it has also been deliberate. Since the days of FDR, there was been a revolt from the leaders of American business (once literally planning a coup against FDR [3]), but usually in a more systematic way of a diverse influence campaign led by many of the same American business oligarchs [4], who created / funded the expansion of entire philosophies of neoliberalism, libertarianism, etc. to justify their positions.[5]
The point being to create an elaborate social and philosophic system that morphed "don't tax / regulate us" into a kind of pro-social philosophy that was more political palatable, which remaining inherently anti-democratic, as their main period of operations in the 1930-1970s went strongly against the electorate's interests.
The 80's Reagan Revolution and the Democratic Party's reaction to it in 1985, the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council)[6], essentially were the institutionalization of this philosophy into both parties, as the neoliberals had won.
The Koch's, etc. then started a new era of even more blatant anti-democratic efforts [7] that gave us Citizens United [8], etc., which of course has changed the game in unlocking infinite money into politics, which now has essentially disenfranchised the country at the national level so thoroughly, that research by Princeton [9] clearly shows that politicians' actions are not at all correlated to the average person, whereas they are significantly correlated to wealth people / interest groups.
> “They’re buying data. That’s what they’re doing,” says Warren Davidson, a Republican congressperson from Ohio. “They’re structuring markets to collect the data and they’re circumventing the Fourth Amendment. We need to turn that off.”
This is also a big part of the problem, imo. It is too easy for apps to request a cocktail of permissions (including location data) when an app is installed; then users never revisit those permissions after the app is used once.
Meanwhile the app is constantly tracking users locations. And selling it to third parties, which sell it to gov’t orgs.
How can mobile devices be updated to make users more aware of these problems? Maybe iOS and Android can, once a month, pull up a dossier of you on an app-by-app basis or something.