Intelligence Services Evade 4th Amendment by Paying for Your Data
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence warned that the practice threatens civil liberties, risks "mission creep," and could increase intelligence agencies' power.

A report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), completed in January 2022 but just declassified last week, looks at the relationship between the intelligence community and private sector data brokers. As it turns out, it's worse than you may have thought.
The report examines commercially available information (CAI), broadly defined as "information that is available commercially to the general public." The category "can include credit histories, insurance claims, criminal records, employment histories, incomes, ethnicities, purchase histories, and interests." While the data are often anonymized, the ODNI report notes that it's often possible "to deanonymize and identify individuals, including U.S. persons."
"Today, in a way that far fewer Americans seem to understand, and even fewer of them can avoid," the report cautions, "CAI includes information on nearly everyone that is of a type and level of sensitivity that historically could have been obtained, if at all, only through targeted (and predicated) collection."
Intelligence agencies can't let an opportunity like that go to waste, of course. As such information "clearly provides intelligence value," the report notes, the intelligence community "currently acquires a large amount of CAI" by purchasing it. In many cases, this circumvents the Constitution: "Under Carpenter v. United States, acquisition of persistent location information (and perhaps other detailed information) concerning one person by law enforcement from communications providers is a Fourth Amendment 'search' that generally requires probable cause." But since "the same type of information on millions of Americans is openly for sale to the general public," the intelligence community treats it as publicly available and "can purchase it."
This isn't the first time we've seen this kind of behavior. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union obtained thousands of records showing that Department of Homeland Security agencies were purchasing "huge volumes of people's cell phone location information" and "sidestepping our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable government searches and seizures." And a 2016 inspector general report detailed the Drug Enforcement Administration's practice of paying confidential sources at private companies and in other government agencies for people's confidential information.
The ODNI report came at the request of Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines but took a while to be released. In March 2023, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) asked Haines if her office would release the report, to which she replied, "I think it absolutely should." Yet it took a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center before the report saw the light of day.
"This review shows the government's existing policies have failed to provide essential safeguards for Americans' privacy, or oversight of how agencies buy and use personal data," Wyden said after the report's release.
The fact that such information is available to anybody with a credit card may be concerning, but the fact that a government agency can access it with a requisition form is significantly more troubling. As the ODNI report notes, "Unfettered access to CAI increases [the intelligence community's] power in ways that may exceed our constitutional traditions or other societal expectations." The information also poses a risk of "mission creep," as information "collected for one purpose may be reused for other purposes."
For government agencies that want access to sensitive information, the answer should be a simple one: Come back with a warrant.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Private company reason, private company. Just because these results are ones that you don't like, doesn't make it any different than all the censorship you blew off for years.
Your pretend censorship is just as BS as the 4A claims here.
Ownership matters.
The real glaring question which you're inadvertently hilighting is:
Why, after years of Reason screeching 'muh private corporation' in regards to the successful outsourcing of censorship by the Biden administration and the Trump administration's rogue, #resistance-laden Steel Dossier-creating security agencies and NGOs such as Hamilton68, is Reason suddenly taking a principled stand over data that may technically not be any breach of the 4th amendment because-- as you postulate "muh private company" and various legalistic lines between who-owns-what-data etc.
Let's pretend that Reason is correct and reasonable in the first instance, but off the mark in this second instance. One might ask why they're taking the 'incorrect' stance now?
Well, I would submit that one might conclude that there's an overriding principle of liberty, freedom and belief in freedom of speech that overrides any technical LEGAL considerations when you, say, uncover a vast censorship-industrial complex that has disturbingly incestuous relationships with deep state actors... and that overriding principle of liberty is something that can be argued for, despite the government not technically running afoul of any statutory limitations.
To me, this might be Reason's shambolic way of stumbling backwards into criticizing events which might be characterized as being under the first instance AND the second instance. Given their similarities and all.
You of all people should value online privacy, shreek. If Reason had turned over its server logs, your IP address, and your account registration information to law enforcement after you got banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography you would have been convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography and sent to prison for a very long time.
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on.the accompanying site…
.
.
Following this information:-:-:-:-:-:-:- https://Www.Coins71.Com
Private comoanies have reasons, legitimate ones, for collecting and maintaining MY data. It often helps when we do business together. That's fine. But when they start passing that long to ANYONE else without specifically informing me, AND getting my PERMISSION, it is PRIVATE data. But then they, without my informed approval that's just plain WRONG. gummit have no valid NEED for that data. This is nothing more, or less, than a fishing expedition. They ARE getting personal information wuthout probable cause, my knowledge or cinsent, and without any spcific need to have it. They get BOATLOADS of information, then once they have it, they "SEARCH it to see what might be there. How is this any different from the "general warrants" the Brits passed out to government offucials back in the colony days? Its not. Those "sarms of officers" had authority to gether whatever they wished from whatever source. For any reason or no reason at all. Same with goods. They had the power to walk into your HOME unanounced, uninvited, unwelcome, and rifle thgouth your stuff, wherever they could find it, then take whatever struck their fancy.
Our founders wrote the Constitution the way they did to STOP THAT, amongst other atrocities and insults. But today's FedGov are far worse than George Three ever was. And a WHOLE lot more difficut to prevent.
There’s nothing constitutionally troubling about the government doing what everyone else can do via money.
That’s the whole point of privatizing governance. It’s never been about restraining govt. It’s been about making sure that whatever govt does do rewards those whose beaks need wetting.
Maybe there could be restraints re what data companies consider their property but that sure as fuck ain't gonna happen
While it may not be a constitutional issue, the government can do things with that data that non-government cannot.
oh it most certainly IS contra the Constitution. That Fourth Article of Ammendment states that WE are to be SECURE in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. Digital records are interchangeable with paper records. Business can take it and use it for some things, but government can NOT take it and use it... that makes me less secure than when they don't have it.That Article of Ammendment says NOTHING about HOW that security can be compromised. Or by whom. It simply says "CAINT HAPPEN. but now it IS happnin'. Not good.
What in your opinion does 'our' mean.
There’s nothing constitutionally troubling about the government doing what everyone else can do via money.
Let's put that in some context. Where does the government get that money? Right, taxpayers, so it isn't their money and they have no business spending it in a way that hasn't been approved by voters or at least congress cretins.
As for the data companies "property" I'd argue that they simply steal it from taxpayers and call it theirs. Why shouldn't my purchase history be protected by copyright since it certainly tells a story? Oh right, I don't have deep enough pockets to buy congress critters and get them to pass the douche bag forever copyright act with Sunny Bonehead and Share.
You can argue any falsehood you like, don't make them true.
There are fundamental doctrines around ownership of data services that need to be fixed but until they are this isn't the abuse you think it is and unless you focus on the right thing you're just spitting into the wind.
There’s nothing constitutionally troubling about the government doing what everyone else can do via money.
Back before the Revolution, the king's soldiers would show up with general warrants and look for evidence of any crime. That pissed the colonists off so much that they created the 4A. To prevent that from happening.
Going through information, regardless of the source, and looking for evidence of a crime is in principle no different than what the British soldiers were doing.
And yet you supported blanket collection of geolocation data for everyone in the vicinity of the US capitol on January 6th 2021 which resulted in many people who never entered the capitol or were part of the protest being investigated and visited by the FBI across the country months and even years later. It's amazing how your pretended principles cut in and out like that.
How is this post consistent with you being okay with the Trump document case?
The US has done pretty much nothing re data privacy or property rights since 1980. The EU's GDPR protects my online info far more than some 4A or US govt.
As for general warrants, its fine that the 4A exists. But that data ain't your property so the 4A is irrelevant. Govt doesn't need to buy the data either. The Chinese govt can buy the data - and then gift it to the US (or Iran or Russia). That's how the 5I's spy on each other.
IMO - a Pirate Party would be able to handle this issue far better than libertarians.
Holy fuck statist.
Yes. The government spending money to get around constitutional protections is terrible. What the fuck? Literal fascism.
No no, you see it’s not YOUR information. Just like it’s not YOUR money in the bank vault. Or your deed at the title company.
Plus, it’s jfree, would you really expect anything different?
That’s the whole point of privatizing governance.
No it's not. It's fucking fascism. Fuck you, cut spending.
Third-party doctrine has got to go.
No, it doesn't.
The 4A can not be applied to items that are not owned, possessed or controlled by the target of the investigation. It's literally in the text.
Data that is owned by a data-mining company only has 4A connotations if the owner (the data-mining company) is the target of the investigation for which said data is obtained.
It's nearly impossible to function in modern society without third parties being in possession of what amounts to "papers and effects." Claiming the 4A only applies to things in your physical possession is like saying the 2A only applies to muskets. It's deliberately dishonest and only promoted by people who would just do away with the 4A completely.
It's not about possession. It's about property. The property ABOUT you is not owned BY you.
Financial papers at home are protected. The same papers on a third party server are not. Insisting on physical possession is like insisting the 2A only covers muskets.
It's not about possession. It's about property.
If someone has no expectation of privacy when it comes to "papers and effects" in the possession of a third party, does that give the government access to medical records and correspondence with attorneys? If the 4A applies to those things then why doesn't it apply to everything else? If it doesn't apply to everything else then why does it apply to those things?
Is correspondence with attorneys protected?
Asking for an ex-president.
That general warrant was fine.
Yes, the third-party doctrine does have to go. Specifically, it should go by eliminating the fiction that I willingly sacrificed by ownership merely by letting another party hold it, especially when such holding is subject to explicit contractual obligations and restrictions.
Just like it's still my money even though I ask the bank to hold it for me, it's still my data even though I paid an email provider to hold that for me.
I don't really mind businesses tracking me. The worst thing they can do is try to sell me something. Government though, that's a different matter.
God you're fucking stupid.
Do you understand that you just undermined your own argument entirely if the only thing a business can do with your data is use it to sell you things? No, that's not the only thing they can do with it, fuckwit. That's the entire fucking point of this discussion - they're giving it away for free and/or selling it to the government, often without even being asked in order to facilitate public policy they support like social media censorship.
Maybe you should head back to Glibertarians and see if anybody can explain to you how data collection and retention works just like they taught you how to use basic HTML to modify text. Chalk that up as another lecture you missed in your post-graduate computer science studies.
Read the 4th Amendment again.
Note the word 'THEIR' in the text - requiring ownership/possession of the items protected by the amendment.
The property in this question - data - belongs to the company selling it NOT to the individual who's actions it describes.
Also, it is available for sale on the open market, rather than exclusively to agents of the government (plain view)....
The 4th Amendment does not apply here.
Tell us more about your support for general warrants.
He likes the boot, says it tastes like chicken.
So if the landlord of your section 8 apartment lets the cops into your unit and they discover all of the child pornography you store on your hard drive, that wouldn't be a 4th amendment violation, right shreek?
The companies have privacy statements stating how they will use the information. Contract violation.
Why i use protonmail as they actually do refuse subpoenas.
OK, so it's not Hunter Biden's data and a whole host of 3rd parties have had their civil and property rights violated.
A report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), completed in January 2022 but just declassified last week, looks at the relationship between the intelligence community and private sector data brokers. As it turns out, it's worse than you may have thought.
It's not going to be worse than your rabble-rousing commenters thought, but it will likely be worse than the the *checks ENB tweets* majority of your readers thought.
PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
>> As it turns out, it’s worse than you may have thought.
meh. government evades all kinds of bill of rights shit through private companies
Glenn Greenwald weighs in. You know shit's going sideways when Reason agrees with Greenwald these days.
You say evade, I say violate.
1. It's not happening.
2. It's happening, but it's not as bad as you think.
3. As it turns out, it’s worse than you may have thought.
Cue: 'It's happening, it's worse than you thought, and that's a good thing' in 3... 2...
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM