Biden Opposes Bill That Would Keep Cops and Feds From Buying Your Data
The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing data that they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is once again trying to keep the government from performing an end run around the Fourth Amendment by buying people's personal data. This week, President Joe Biden indicated that he opposed the bill.
H.R. 4639, known as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, "expands prohibited disclosures of stored electronic communications" to include purchases of data by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
First introduced in 2021 by Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.), and Mike Lee (R–Utah), the bill has been reintroduced in subsequent sessions. The current version was introduced in the House by Rep. Warren Davidson (R–Ohio) and in the Senate by Wyden and Paul.
On Wednesday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the House bill's cosponsors, affirmed his support on the House floor. "That anyone should have Americans' private information is highly troubling to me," Nadler said. "But that our federal government can obtain it without a warrant should be troubling to all of us."
On Tuesday, the White House announced that the Biden administration "strongly opposes" the bill. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, the bill "generally would prohibit the Intelligence Community and law enforcement from obtaining certain commercially available information—subject only to narrow, unworkable exceptions."
The Stored Communications Act forbids technology companies from disclosing certain subscriber information, including to the government. But certain types of data—including search histories, credit reports, employment records, and cellphone geolocation data—is "commercially available" and can be sold by third parties called data brokers. Often this data is purchased by private companies in order to better tailor their ad spending.
Governments typically need a warrant to access any of that type of information—as recently as 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed in Carpenter v. United States that the government cannot access a person's cellphone location data without a warrant. "Although such records are generated for commercial purposes," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, that alone did not "negate" the plaintiff's expectation of privacy. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information."
Put simply: Come back with a warrant.
But instead of honoring that decision, law enforcement and intelligence agencies just started buying the information from data brokers instead: The National Security Agency (NSA) buys people's internet metadata, and agencies within the Department of Homeland Security—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—purchase cellphone location data.
Even agencies without an explicit law enforcement mandate have gotten in on the fun: In one example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paid $420,000 for cellphone data in order to monitor compliance with COVID-19 lockdown measures.
The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would ban these transactions. Regarding customer and subscriber records obtained without a warrant, the bill "prohibits law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies from obtaining the records or information from a third party in exchange for anything of value (e.g., purchasing them)." It further prohibits other government agencies from sharing that information and prevents the records from being used in "any trial, hearing, or proceeding."
Again, this should not be controversial: The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to get a warrant based upon "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," before searching one's "persons, houses, papers, and effects."
Biden's opposition to the bill is disappointing. A January 2022 report by the office of Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines found that "today, in a way that far fewer Americans seem to understand, and even fewer of them can avoid," the type of data at issue "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, and that could be used to cause harm to an individual's reputation, emotional well-being, or physical safety."
The intelligence community "therefore needs to develop more refined approaches to" commercially available information, the report found. On the other hand, perhaps it should stop collecting that data altogether.
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
Don't you know that Joe Biden recognizes the constitution?
Then again, don't worry. MIke Johnson appears to be bought off. So probably won't pass.
Nothing unconstitutional about buying data.
So happy when you statists expose yourselves.
Really, you're the pot calling the kettle black.
Don’t be racist.
Unfortunately you are right. However the government did create the Social Security system, which gave us the SSN that was promiced would NEVER be used for identification outside of the Social Security program. Read what it says under the number on an older card, I know people who were old enough to go to Vietnam still had it on their cards, not sure when it stopped. The words below said, "For Tax Purposes Only" and "Not to be used as Identification" might have been for instead of as. I haven't seen a card with that on it for a while. My father's said that. So did a Vietnam Vet I roomed with back in the day.
Now that unconstitutional number is used to tie all your data together in a neat package to be bought by anyone with enough cash.
I recall 2001-2008 when Repubs cheered warrantless wiretapping because the Bushpigs "kept us safe".
#9/11wasObamasfault
Do you ever tire of being an idiot? I seem to remember a goodly number of Democrats cheering it on too.
Just because it passed with majority being dem votes mans nothing to shrike.
Then all the neocons became dems. See The Bulwark and the Lincoln Party.
Joe, what should this tell you and other Reason writers about this administration? Did you learn anything? Did anything stand out to you about this administration? Will it change your vote in November?
Sadly, I suspect you still just don’t get it no matter how much the evidence points to it and the commentariat tells you about it.
What exactly are the Republicans offering that is so much better? They cave to Democrats on just about everything so why complicate the loss of our liberty by voting for Republicans who will just do what the Democrats want and instead vote for Democrats and take away the Democrats best excuse, blame the Republicans. If there are no Republicans in the House and Senate then who will they blame for everything going wrong? Go back to blaming Reagan or one of the Bushes?
Don't kid yourself. Self-projection is the lefts #1 character strength. They'll blame the 'air' if they have too (enter environmental freaks).
Yeah, but will enough people buy it?
Republicans have a well earned reputation as religious fanatics that want Biblical Law in the US. A lot of people don't want that so by default they hold their noses and vote for Democrats. When everything goes to shit the Democrats blame Republicans and their voters, already not pleased with Republicans, buy the story.
Now, are those "we know we aren't Republican" voters going to buy the bullshit from the Democrats whom they are already holding their nose and voting for if the bullshit is "blame air"?
I doubt it.
"Joe, what should this tell you and other Reason writers about this administration?..."
How about:
Who got your vote, Joe?
H.R. 4639, known as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act
Wait, the act is called FAINFSA? That's not a catchy acronym. It has no chance of passing now!
I was thinking the same thing. No cute acronyms? Doomed this bill is. Doomed I say.
Biden's opposition to the bill is disappointing.
Disappointing but not surprising. Has he ever been strong on civil liberties? Just abortion and capital punishment, I think. He seems to be firmly in the mold of those who want to violate our liberties "to keep us safe". Yet one more reason not to vote for him. Not even strategically or reluctantly.
It is consistent with his Tough-on-Thug crime bill support in the 90s.
Of course, as polls now show Donnie is winning the Thug vote.
#BlacksForDonnie
Polls also show that turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
At least he's consistent on the government having the power to kill citizens from before they are born up to when they annoy him enough.
You aren't a citizen until you are born. Read the Constitution.
I'm digging at the supposed pro-life people. I agree with you.
+100000000 Well Said.
Not only did the FISA renewal not get the warrant requirement, it was also expanded.
"'Under the House-passed bill, the government can compel the assistance of individuals or companies that provide any service at all, as long as they have access to the equipment (for instance, servers, routers or cell towers) on which communications are transmitted.""
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-the-fisa-expansion-turning-cable-installers-into-spies-cannot-stand/ar-BB1lOXR1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2180c0cf649043158a5538009e0d6384&ei=34