[HN Gopher] The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to targ... ___________________________________________________________________ The U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people Author : _-david-_ Score : 244 points Date : 2021-11-09 18:41 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (theintercept.com) (TXT) w3m dump (theintercept.com) | shrubble wrote: | Idea: get together some money, buy data of 100 of the CEOs of | Fortune 500 companies. | | Publish everything found, see if the laws are then changed... | darkwizard42 wrote: | A good start, but their profiles are probably incredibly well | scrubbed (or whatever is out there is already mitigated). | | Instead, collect it on every Congressperson and then see how | fast things change. Most politicians don't have the means to | scrub their backgrounds like multi-million dollar PR-vulnerable | CEOs. | saganus wrote: | Seems more likely that those same Congresspersons | (Congresspeople?) will try to stomp you out of existence, | before making any changes to the law. | | I don't imagine people with such amount of power and | connections to just roll over because "they caught us with | the hand in the cookie jar!" | wmf wrote: | It's probably faster to buy data on members of Congress. I | assume that's where things likt the Video Privacy Protection | Act came from. | jdhn wrote: | I'm curious what the overall take will be on this. Normally, this | action would be frowned upon if it was a private company, but I'm | assuming that people may be more open to it being done by | Treasury because it's "for the societal good". | leereeves wrote: | > but I'm assuming that people may be more open to it being | done by Treasury because it's "for the societal good". | | Politics in America has become so hostile that people are now | openly celebrating harm done to "the other side", so I don't | doubt that there are people who will feel that way. | | But I suspect that most of them will feel quite differently | when the White House is controlled by the other party. | HWR_14 wrote: | Funny, I assume the exact opposite. I'm guessing many people | oppose government data collection but because they are buying | data on the open market from people who "opt in", they're okay | with it. | | I wish there was the ability to make a poll: | | * This is fine, privacy is dead. | | * This is okay because of private companies collecting and | selling the data, even to the government | | * This is okay because the government is using this data to | enforce laws I believe in, even though it rewards private data | merchants. | | * Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be voided and | the companies dissolved. | akamaka wrote: | * It's much more urgent to address how private companies use | the data, since we at least have some visibility into what | the government is doing with it. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | this is bad because people who opt in think either that their | data is not being sold to third parties or that the third | party buying data is another company, nobody when opting in | assumes that their data will be used in an investigation that | can then lead to criminal charges. | quantified wrote: | We all committed privacy suicide when we bought smartphones. | The data that we thought should be out of government hands, | we put into the hands of many businesses. I agree it seems | unsettling, but why can't the government purchase information | on the open market? | [deleted] | Cycl0ps wrote: | https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re | [deleted] | derekjdanserl wrote: | I am entertained by how the HN crowd goes Marxist when it | comes to private data. | | (Please think twice before replying based on lazy | presumptions of what Marxism is.) | getcrunk wrote: | I mean the available options kinda forces that. | handrous wrote: | I, for one, liked the options, and happily chose | "Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be | voided and the companies dissolved." | | I think middle age is turning me into some flavor | anarchist. Weird. | wongarsu wrote: | There's also | | * The data collection is fine, but the government shouldn't | be allowed to circumvent checks and balances by buying this | data | | * The government using such data without warrant is fine, but | it shouldn't be sold on the open market | fidesomnes wrote: | oh okay, stop it when you get a chance. | dr-detroit wrote: | If you want to politicize any issue at all it must become a | zero sum prisoners dilemma where I enjoy the benefits and the | dreaded "other" is annihilated. | BurningFrog wrote: | Whether I think it's fine or not, privacy is dead. | ncallaway wrote: | Can we...can we have at least one "not okay" option that | doesn't brand everyone involved as evil? | xerox13ster wrote: | If it's not okay, then everyone involved made a choice to | be complicit in something that is "not okay". Willingly | participating in harmful activities isn't evil? | dylan604 wrote: | Only if you do it while twirling a mustache. | cma wrote: | Imagine the government wanted to know who "deepthroat" was | during Watergate: just buy the location data of the journalists | and anyone nearby. | bragr wrote: | I don't have a problem with the government accessing the data | per se. Given that the data exists and is commercially | available, it would seem silly to tie their hands from | accessing it. Police routinely run credit checks or just google | people of interest to learn what is publicly known about them | and I don't really have a problem with that. What I do have a | problem with is that our privacy laws and culture are so lax | that detailed location information has essentially become part | of the public record of a person. It seems like one way or the | other, governments will find avenues to get at that data if it | exists, and if you don't want the government tracking people, | better to cut the data off at the source. | literallyaduck wrote: | Don't like it? Organizations like the EFF have been working to | stop overreach: | | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-fincen-stop-pushin... | | You can help financially, and contact each of your | representatives and senators and request they act to stop this | end run around the constitution. | mensetmanusman wrote: | " Critics of the software say it essentially allows the state to | buy its way past the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans | from unreasonable searches." | | Interesting. Clearly data analysis can find all the tax dodgers, | but is that an unreasonable search? | 1cvmask wrote: | Privacy invasion and surveillance is like invading countries a | bipartisan issue. They always moan when one side uses government | excesses against the "other" side but still vote for enhanced | executive power and overreach all the time. | | The national security and surveillance state is as bipartisan as | putting economic sanctions on poor Latin American countries, | arming proxies, funding NGO fronts and bombing countries. | sroussey wrote: | You should see the data they are buying on crypto related | persons. 8-/ | motohagiography wrote: | If one sees the U.S. constitution and its amendments merely as | dated conventions, there is no reason for the IRS and other | agencies not to leverage tech to drive enforcement numbers, and | for the agencies themselves to just become the policy levers they | want to have. However, there are others who believe the rules are | in place to prevent this precise type of eventuality, where a | technological change shifts the balance of power and shreds any | perception of a social contract, so you need rules that limit the | scope and powers of government so it doesn't consume and enslave | everything. | | I think a generation of people who believe the former statement | have taken control of institutions, and we're watching it play | out now. If you want to predict what this generation of | bureaucracy will do, find the emergency exceptions and | notwithstanding discretion to every law that protects the | individual and limits the power of government, and then contrive | the excuse that enables it, and this will be the policy and | tactics of the people behind it. This Treasury collecting data | story isn't about legalisms and principles, the people doing it | really are nihilists, where language itself is just words that | can mean anything, so it might as well mean whatever they want. | Arguing under the false belief that principles and logic matters | means doing nothing while they ratchet up controls and make | themselves impossible to dislodge. | | You aren't going to persuade the Treasury or other people | involved in these plays with reason, as the prospect of total, | permanent, tech-facilitated dominion means the stakes are too | high for them not to make a play for it. Only the courts, or | sadly, conflict can dislodge it I think. We need to seriously | consider how much tech is causing our governments to metastasize, | and what the options for mitigating it are. | | There is no reason to believe your phone that tracks everything | about you will not be used by people in government without | accountability as leverage against you personally. This was | paranoid ranting 20 years ago, and today it's just unpopular | buzzkill. All that's left is to say "it was ever thus" and the | only people who complained were the ones merely maladapted to the | change and the inevitable progress of history. | jasonfarnon wrote: | "I think a generation of people who believe the former | statement have taken control of institutions" I think the cause | and effect are backwards here. It is their having taken control | of institutions that makes individuals less likely to take | seriously the spirit of pesky constitutional protections. Which | was of course foreseen by the founding fathers. | pjmorris wrote: | > There is no reason to believe your phone that tracks | everything about you will not be used by people in government | without accountability as leverage against you personally. | | I have one small revision: There is no reason to believe your | phone that tracks everything about you will not be used by | people without accountability as leverage against you | personally. | cblconfederate wrote: | At this point why not privatize the government? It will save the | US billions of dollars in deals. | smallerfish wrote: | a) Both contracts are tiny ($150k each) although obviously these | may be pilot programs. | | b) Finding evaders of sanctions seems like it should fall under a | national security agency's purvue. We all take it for granted | that the NSA could pinpoint our locations pretty easily, right? | One thing that's particularly insane about the US government is | how many departments have intelligence agencies. Obviously the | ideal would be to have a small handful of well regulated | intelligence agencies (emphasis on "well regulated", and you only | have to look at the overreach by e.g. the CIA over the past 50 | years to know that the US has had issues with that.) | | c) The tax evasion contract looks at social media posts to find | tax evaders. I wouldn't be particularly upset if the IRS had | their own internal tech department doing this - if you're going | to have a tax agency, you want it to be able to prevent cheating, | otherwise the tax system falls apart. Finding people who have | declared themselves to have beaten the system in a public forum | is a cheap and easy way to go after cheaters. | | There's a lot of pork in contracts that government agencies give | out to private contractors, but this seems like a relatively low | spend, and so it doesn't seem particularly bad that the IRS has | decided that this is outside of their current expertise and given | out a contract to chase it. | Zak wrote: | > _We all take it for granted that the NSA could pinpoint our | locations pretty easily, right?_ | | In the same way we take it for granted that a SWAT team could | kill any of us pretty easily. They have (and probably should | have) the _ability_ , but the authority to use it should be | very limited and subject to stringent oversight. | smallerfish wrote: | No doubt. But, say that the NSA were given the purvue over | enforcing sanctions (because they are the national security | agency). Should they be able to monitor who is visiting the | country with the sanctions? | | Sanctions are kind of like the tax agency situation - if | you're going to wield them as a national security tool, then | you want to be able to enforce them, otherwise they're | relatively meaningless. And enforcing them necessarily | involves watching to see if your country's citizens are | evading them. | Zak wrote: | I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law | enforcement functions any more than I want the army to, for | similar reasons. | | The type of oversight applied to military and foreign | intelligence action is fundamentally political. Whether and | how to impose sanctions against, spy on, or invade another | country are questions for congress and the president in the | US and rarely involve the courts. | | The type of oversight applied to law enforcement is | fundamentally legal. Courts apply existing law to the set | of facts in a given case. Congress and the president do not | get involved directly and any attempt by political | officials to influence the outcome is scandalous, if not | criminal. | | So should the NSA hack Iran's immigration database to see | who's been going there? Perhaps. Should anything discovered | that way be admissible in a criminal trial? Almost | certainly not. Should the NSA tip off the FBI about | domestic crimes? Mostly no, I think, but perhaps in a very | limited fashion when the crimes involve national security | or foreign policy. Gathering evidence that can be used in a | criminal trial would still be the responsibility of the | FBI. | cabbagehead wrote: | The pseudonymised ad data is just going to tell you the numbers | of people travelling to sanctioned states. No big deal. There | would be a story here if the government was re-identifying | people, which would be a clear breach of the law. But there's no | evidence or suggestion of that happening, just "assume the worst | of government" speculation. Poor journalism. | | As for looking at public social media posts for evidence of tax | dodging, I'd hope that if someone was dumb enough to advertise | this publicly, and everyone can see they are abusing other | citizens out of funding for public services, the IRS should look | into it. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | A lot of right vs left division is one side wanting to restrain | corporations and the other side wanting to restrain government. | Privacy concerns are one way to break through that divide when | government and corporations unite. | siruncledrew wrote: | How much do you think this has to do with the government trying | extra hard now to tax crypto? | cjcole wrote: | It seems apparent that the US government is pursuing a novel | strategy to route around the Bill of Rights: | | Steps: | | * Allow (and encourage) private sector monopolies to form | | * Use its leverage and influence to "encourage" those monopolies | to do things which the US government is not allowed to do | (examples: censorship, data collection) | | The list of First Amendment precedents, for example, with respect | to the government is long and detailed. On the other hand, | private companies operate under fewer restrictions and can act | much more freely. | | So if we have a situation where there are a small number of | monopolies and they, through personal relationships (marriage), | lobbying, and the revolving door have a cozy relationship with | the US government, then the government can effectively censor | (for example) by more or less declaring "will no one rid me of | these turbulent tweets" and have the monopolies jump to comply | (or face increased risk of antitrust action for example). | | This is a win-win for both: the monopolies avoid antitrust and | other unwanted regulation by playing ball, and the government | gets to ignore the Bill of Rights by "outsourcing" actions to | what are in effect de facto quasi-governmental entities. It's | only a loss for the people for whom the Bill of Rights was | written to protect. | getcrunk wrote: | This is exactly what is happening. And afaict as far back as | the 70's. Major isp's taking public funds, close relationship | between nsa and Google | [deleted] | nostromo wrote: | We need a Supreme Court ruling or law that says if the government | doesn't have a warrant to collect your data, they also can't buy | it from third parties. | | We also need privacy protections so these companies wouldn't | exist in the first place. | wintermutestwin wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine | whimsicalism wrote: | I absolutely think that the government should be able to | purchase data in order to conduct investigations. | | Unlike private actors, governmental actors are publicly | constrained in their actions and representatives of the will of | our society. | artificialLimbs wrote: | >> Unlike private actors, governmental actors are publicly | constrained in their actions and representatives of the will | of our society. | | Are you aware of the term 'unelected bureaucrat', and do you | know how many of them exist? They are accountable to no one. | They continually prove to be significant problems. | whimsicalism wrote: | Even the most unelected bureaucrat in America is more | representative of the will of the people than a middle | manager at Facebook. | nostromo wrote: | I'm more afraid of police and local prosecutors than | anyone at Facebook, including Zuck himself. | ruined wrote: | the subpoena system, for all its failings, is that public | constraint. if it can be circumvented, that constraint | effectively no longer exists. | whimsicalism wrote: | The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the | government from taking actions that private actors could | legally do, it compels private actors to act according to | state whims. | | If someone volunteers information, it is not a | "circumvention" of the subpoena. | | Breaking into Google and stealing information for a | criminal investigation would be circumventing it. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the | government from taking actions that private actors could | legally do | | Irrelevant. Gov wants data, Gov gets a narrowly targeted | warrant first. Beyond this lies 4A violations. | oh_sigh wrote: | Can the government buy an autobiography I wrote detailing | my crimes to help their investigation? Or is that a 4th | amendment violation? | david-cako wrote: | Why should dark web data brokers get to look at all of my nudes | but not the Supreme Court? | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | Web data brokers can't legally kick in your door and kill | everyone inside. | oh_sigh wrote: | Neither can the government generally. | alksjdalkj wrote: | If a private company can buy the data why shouldn't the | government be able to? | | The real solution is to not allow the data to be sold to | anyone. | pfortuny wrote: | Because the Government has a strictly limited power: it is | _subsidiary_. | whimsicalism wrote: | There are plenty of things government can do that private | industry does not have the ability to do. | | Making transactions (and even paying informants for | information) are and should be within the power of the | government. | VRay wrote: | Private companies (theoretically/ideally) don't have the | power of life and death over you | azemetre wrote: | But they do. Private companies have killed people with ill- | made products [1], pollute our air and water [2], have | purposely targeted people for harassment [3], and created | drugs solely for addiction [4]. These examples only took 30 | seconds of thought. | | The idea that businesses (whether public or private) can't | hurt me or my family is absurd. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher- | Price#Rock_'n_Play_reca... | | [2] https://www.consumerreports.org/water- | contamination/how-frac... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal | | [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family#Opioid_law | suits | gred wrote: | More broadly, a monopoly on violence. | callmeal wrote: | >don't have the power of life and death over you | | Actually they do. See this for just one of the many ways | they have that power: | | https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/21/teen-dies-hours- | after... | baldeagle wrote: | Like literally, the amount of instances where the | government is weighing life/death is very small, even | smaller at the federal level (most death penalty cases are | against state laws). If you're meaning in the 'government | programs can greatly affect my quality of life', then | private companies can totally do that too - through | targeted advertising. | saintsmeeze wrote: | I'm not sure if this is satire/sarcasm. Are you comparing | the power to imprison people with targeted advertising? | sennight wrote: | Like literally, that is the basis for state power - | several iterations of "...or else" finally end with "we | kill you". Private companies don't enjoy that privilege - | because they don't have the power to distinguish murder | from justifiable homicide. | nescioquid wrote: | That the government has power over you at all is what | matters, not how often it exercises that power against | you. Already parallel case construction is a troubling | problem (given the warrantless domestic surveillance). | Grant the government access to surveillance capitalism / | ad tech, and now you've got another vector to launder | evidence. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | not to mention the power to imprison you. | nobody9999 wrote: | I'd go farther than that and say that such data shouldn't be | collected in the first place. | mywittyname wrote: | We can't rely on SCOTUS to make this ruling for another 50+ | years, so our best hope is to start with state legislators. The | majority of law enforcement happens at a state level, and most | state legislators aren't as hamstrung as the federal one is, so | this is the easiest way to achieve the most impactful results. | | Also, POTUS is in charge of most federal law enforcement | agencies. So it might be possible to handle this at a federal | level through an executive order. Obviously, this doesn't have | the staying power of a proper law, but it's something. | nostromo wrote: | I'm not so pessimistic. United States v. Jones showed that | both wings of the court can unite to push back on this kind | of overreach. | mmcdermott wrote: | Feels like it would be more airtight to amend the | Constitution. Why hope that precedence falls a certain way | instead of removing any ambiguity from the law? | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | There's a good chance the Constitution covers this now. | What we need are uncompromised courts to hear and rule on | 4A violations. | mywittyname wrote: | I don't necessarily believe a Constitutional amendment is | necessary, since this would be a law limiting government | reach, not extending it. | | In all likelihood, the amendments text would look something | like: | | > Section 1: The fourth article of amendment to the | Constitution of the United States is hereby extended to | include information or detail held, owned, or otherwise | under the custody of those other than the accused. | | > Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this | article by appropriate legislation. | | Which then necessitates some accompanying legislation to | further clarify. But I'm pretty confident we can get there | through legislation alone. | Cederfjard wrote: | The last amendment to the US constitution that was proposed | and then ratified came in 1971. With bipartisanship being | what it is today, do you think there's any chance of | pushing another one through at this point in time? The bar | is high, and American politicians are loathe to give any | opponents perceived wins, even if it's regarding | overwhelmingly popular policies. | | Sure, you're probably right that it'd be more airtight. | It'd also mean an almost herculean effort. It's probably | best to explore other options as well. | kingkawn wrote: | Between 1971-72 there were 2,500 politically motivated | domestic bombings in the US. Partisanship now, as bad as | it is, doesn't come close to that level of violence. | icelancer wrote: | >> We can't rely on SCOTUS to make this ruling for another | 50+ years | | If that's a comment about the bureaucracy working slowly as | hell, that is reasonable. If it's about the makeup of the | court, I disagree. | | Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch are two you want on the | court in this case. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | We just need members of Congress to have embarrassing info or | evidence of criminality exposed by data broker collection. | Then they'll seal everything up like with video rental | records. | closeparen wrote: | Almost all investigative work is asking people to share | information that they don't legally have to. | swayvil wrote: | We need to make a law that says the wolves can't eat the sheep | [deleted] | jonathankoren wrote: | Third party doctrine has been decided on a case by case basis | with respect to the type of data provided. Recently the SCOTUS | has been pushing back on this, in particularly around automatic | data sharing intrinsic to the operation of a device, such as | cell phone location records. | | However, no one has gone as far as Utah in requiring warrants. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine | | https://www.wired.com/story/utah-digital-privacy-legislation... | austincheney wrote: | Why? I understand the subject is unpleasant but I don't see | anything that remotely qualifies as legal over reach. | | Users must sign a consent statement to a _terms of services_ | agreement. That is a voluntary action where users erode their | own privacy protections and surrender their contributions. | Anything that happens later is completely incidental and solely | between the data owner (which is not the user) and the third | party. | JasonFruit wrote: | Not a Supreme Court ruling: if there's no law outlawing it, | there's no basis for them to rule against it. Do you really | want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this | matter? | nostromo wrote: | Here you go: | | "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their | persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable | searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants | shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or | affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be | searched, and the persons or things to be seized." | downandout wrote: | If SCOTUS outlawed buying the data, they'd just find ways | around that too. Maybe they'd just start creating apps and | directly monitoring people. With an unlimited marketing and | development budget, they could wind up on the majority of | Americans' phones pretty fast. Depending on the kinds of apps | they created, they might get warrantless access to millions of | bank accounts, text messages, emails, video conferences, full | real-time location tracking, and more. | chiefalchemist wrote: | If this wasn't mentioned in "Dragnet Nation" (2014) it was at | least (strongly) suggested. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_Nation | | That is, once data is on the open market (including at dark web) | then a gov acquiring it is a click or two away. | austincheney wrote: | It stands to reason that the government won't need a warrant to | gather criminally admissible data from a service broker if it is | voluntarily transferred to the government and the service broker | forced its users to agree to a _terms of service_ agreement. | | I also see lots of talk in the comments about a social credit and | hiring potential. There are no restrictions on hiring software | developers. As horrible as a social credit sounds at least its | some kind of guardrails, where now there are none. In any system | without constraints there is maximum potential for implicit bias. | cromka wrote: | Yeah, but GDPR is pain in the ass and all such, right? | AlexandrB wrote: | This is not a new take, but I think "the west" is effectively | building their own version of China's social credit. It's just | distributed among a range of private companies and accessed via | subpoena or contract. The fact that the government doesn't | operate most of it directly is largely irrelevant to those | negatively affected by it and in some ways makes the situation | worse (who do you even contact to correct inaccurate | information?). | [deleted] | m0zg wrote: | Utah released plans for the new electronic ID a couple of weeks | back which, among other things, would contain your "vaccination | status" and "social credit scoring". | | Conservative press is abuzz with this (including photos of the | promo leaflet), liberal press is dead silent. Since nobody on | this site will believe a conservative news source, I'm not even | going to bother providing a link. If you're in Utah, ask your | local government to put an end to this horseshit before it's | too late. | [deleted] | [deleted] | Sevastopol wrote: | > "the west" is effectively building their own version of | China's social credit. | | China's social credit system allegedly assigns (or will | assign?) all citizens scores and punishes them for social | wrongdoings. The IRS has always been tasked with auditing and | catching tax cheats, the Treasury always went after people who | violate economic sanctions. What's the similarity other than | data collection? | [deleted] | FpUser wrote: | The similarity is global system of collecting every piece of | data about citizens. | | You start with the little. Due to complexity and sheer | amounts of laws, bylaws etc. each one of us breaks few of | those every day. The systems like the one being mentioned | will eventually be able to track those as well making every | citizen an offender. Then when the time comes who do you | thing they will choose to prosecute? Most likely those pesky | human rights advocates and other similar people who are | already monitored. | | I think unless some "Reset" button is pushed we will end up | exactly like this. End up on various lists (already | happening) and private companies denying vital services. | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | > What's the similarity | | Wasn't there some kerfuffle a few years ago about "special | attention" being given to political targets? | | (Cue Richelieu's "six lines") | LogonType10 wrote: | The fact that we were allowed to discuss and protest this | "special attention" shows that we are a far, far ways away | from China's Social Credit system. | travoc wrote: | Why do you need more similarities? The mass data collection | completes the system. | avs733 wrote: | Private corporations are collecting the data, the state is | just buying it, and I doubt they are the only customer. | throwawayboise wrote: | Yep. As has often been said, everything you do online is | (or you should assume to be) public. There are no | secrets. | fsflover wrote: | Also, everything you do on your Windows PC (and soon on a | Mac). | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | You're assigning intent without any basis in fact. | kelnos wrote: | Because we need to understand the purpose of the data | collection and what bad things might happen because of it. | | If Treasury is using this data to catch people who violate | economic sanctions, ok. If the IRS is using this data to | catch people who cheat on their taxes, ok. I don't love | either of those things, but they are using the data only to | do things that have been defined as their job to do for a | long time now. | | There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this data | is going to be used to penalize people | financially/economically for "social infractions", or to | penalize people in unrelated ways (like, you missed | payments on your credit card so you aren't allowed to ride | on a train). If there was, then sure, that's cause for | worry. | gmadsen wrote: | I think history has shown enough times, that there needs | to be a bigger barrier than, "no evidence currently that | this data will be used in ways that differ from the | stated reason" | Jarwain wrote: | I think the barrier is that if people getting canceled | impacts their credit score, or if their credit directly | impacts their ability to travel or get a job, there'd be | a lot of social unrest. Especially in a country where | people's perception and politics plays a huge role in the | functioning of the government | artificialLimbs wrote: | >> There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this | data is going to be used to penalize people | financially/economically for "social infractions" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy | drunkpotato wrote: | The IRS did nothing wrong here, and it certainly is not | an example of the IRS penalizing people for social | infractions. As with any movement with lots of money and | momentum and rapidly gaining popularity, there were a lot | of fraudsters capitalizing on the Tea Party movement's | name and engaging in shady tax dodging practices. The IRS | was correct to subject them to increased scrutiny. | | In terms of the facts involved, this has nothing to do | with China's social credit score. Note that I am strictly | talking about the facts involved, not the political | fallout and usual bloviating. | kelnos wrote: | That's bad, but is not what we're talking about here. Not | to mention it was a big scandal and that practice (which | was not supported by any law or legal policy) has | stopped. The China-style social credit system people | worry about is something done on purpose, as designed, | out in the open. | | Can we stop taking isolated incidents and framing them as | official policy? | eindiran wrote: | > what bad things might happen because of it | | > can we stop taking isolated incidents and framing them | as official policy | | Which do you actually want? What bad things that might | happen because of it, or that list of bad things | massively trimmed down to just what the US government | publicly sanctions as official policy? | beambot wrote: | Don't forget to add parallel construction to the list of | options too: bad things that then help make a separate | case using sanctioned methods. | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | >>> In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the | FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had | found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal | criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as | it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and | that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, | the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges | would be filed. | FpUser wrote: | >"Because we need to understand the purpose of the data | collection and what bad things might happen because of | it." | | And government would of course never abuse the data it | has. We've heard that before. The have, they do and they | will keep doing it. | coralreef wrote: | The FBI needs file hashes of every photo on everyone's | phone. It will help detect abusers of cp/illegal content. | | It is the mandate of the FBI and their job for a long | time now to stop those things. | | There doesn't seem to be any evidence that these hashes | would be used to penalize people in other ways, but if | there was then sure, that's cause for worry. | | /parody | mulmen wrote: | Selective enforcement is more American than apple pie and | baseball. | whiddershins wrote: | Look at the prosecution of Aaron Schwartz, where the | prosecutor plainly indicated Aaron's political views were | motivation for being so zealous. | drunkpotato wrote: | I agree that's bad, but what does it have to do with the | current conversation? It seems like a non sequitur. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of this | data is going to be used to | | Irrelevant. Get a targeted warrant, then get limited | data. | ljm wrote: | Maybe you didn't consent to the data being sold, yet it | was sold anyway? | | In the US, except in California perhaps, you have no | recourse. In the EU, that's a violation of GDPR and | various local data protection laws. Elsewhere, unclear. | boringg wrote: | Agree with Sevastopol how is it even similar? | | I ask, honestly, if anyone else one here is seeing a large | influx of intentionally skewing of what the US does and makes | it comparable to some terrible policy that China does. It | really feels like there are a lot of people with strong | Chinese interests mudding the waters of debate by equating | the US with China. Feels very much like the Russian | disinformation campaigns as Trump as elected except smarter | and Chinese oriented. | triactual wrote: | Yes, this is common in user comments on several otherwise | intellectually useful sites. It almost always takes the | form of a reasonable take followed by a comparison to China | and an insinuation that the US version may be worse. The | commenters have the same playbook to work from because the | Russians wrote it in the mid 20th century. | edgyquant wrote: | Yes this is happening everywhere from Reddit to HN. | FpUser wrote: | >"It really feels like there are a lot of people with | strong Chinese interests mudding the waters of debate by | equating the US with China." | | What you say feels to me as Joseph McCarthy has just sprung | back to life. | passer_byer wrote: | > What you say feels to me as Joseph McCarthy has just | sprung back to life. | | No need to go that far back in the history of the U.S. | Government spying on it's own citizens. In the late | 1960's, the Nixon Administration used IRS data to spy on | Vietnam war protesters, Dr. Martin Luther King, members | of the Student's Non-Violent Coordination Committee, and | other American citizens critical of the administration's | foreign policy[1]. | | Human behavior being what it is means that eventually | someone in the U.S. government will be tempted to use | this data for nefarious purposes. Why should US citizens | live in a survaillence state contrary to the Bill of | Rights? | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee | edgyquant wrote: | I feel like equating someone asking why pro-Chinese | sentiment seems to be taking place with McCarthyism is | dishonest and a quick way to shut down a legitimate | question. | unethical_ban wrote: | Is there a United States senator in this thread | compelling people to testify, and then ruining their | careers and livelihoods over baseless claims? | arcticfox wrote: | I feel like McCarthyism requires pointing fingers in | particular directions with no evidence. Neither was done | there | FpUser wrote: | It is exactly what was done here: blaming people with | having "strong Chinese interests" with no evidence. | bcrosby95 wrote: | This is a common strategy in American politics. If you can | get the public to associate something with | China/Russia/communism/bad person then you have the | American public on your side. So I wouldn't necessarily see | it as just people with strong Chinese interests. | arcticfox wrote: | It would be silly for the Chinese _not_ to be doing this. | Extremely low cost [1], low risk, measurable effects, etc. | | And the PRC is not a silly government - therefore my prior | is very strong that it's taking place on a grand scale. | | [1] a cruise missile is ~$2M...you could hire dozens of | skilled astroturfers for a year for that, and you can't | even use missiles against the US due to MAD... | munk-a wrote: | Pretty much everyone in the west gets a credit score the math | of which is nebulous and proprietary. It is increased by | acting in a desireable manner even if that manner is | unhealthy or unproductive for the individual - and a lot of | random BS can go into the math that we can't even see. | | In the west these things aren't public so it isn't the | government grading you - but you still are very much being | graded by private corporations. Since we have no idea what | they're actually using to grade us we can't confidently say | they aren't using any "social misbehavior" we'd find | offensive. | | If these programs were run by the government we could file | FOIA requests - but with private organizations we're S.O.L. | kelnos wrote: | I don't think I really see evidence of this. I mean, the IRS | wants to catch people who cheat on their taxes. That's | something they've been empowered to do for a long time. And | when they catch people for that, they audit them, perhaps take | them to court, and fine them. Which seems reasonable. | | If the IRS is going to start telling people they aren't allowed | to ride trains or get on airplanes because they applied a | deduction to their taxes in a way that's not allowed, then we | should worry; that sounds like the China-style social credit | system people talk about. But I don't see that as being | realistic; the IRS doesn't have that kind of power. | burnafter185 wrote: | Well, I think to be fair to this, we had ought to look at the | expansion of government agencies. The ATF, NSA, CIA, FBI, | FDA, and so on and so forth are all additions to power. It's | not a far reach to assume that granted some new ability to | "remedy" some social ill, that establishment of some new | agency is probable with implied powers and the necessary and | proper clause. And it's really not necessarily _just_ the | IRS, but setting a precedent, there are various agencies that | have been leveraging data-broker deals to track individuals. | The more agencies jump on this the closer we get to | crystallizing the behavior. If that 's the case, it seems | like a considerable hazard, which in the end could lead to | some real consequences in the future. We've seen democracies | turn into empires, and emperors of all kinds inherit those | powers. This is the sort of gravitas no man, nor government | had ought to be permitted to wield. | wongarsu wrote: | Being able to correct inaccurate information is an often | underappreciated but important part of the GDPR. It's also | probably the biggest motivation why you have a right to ask any | company what data they have stored about you: so you can spot | mistakes in the data of rating agencies. The other use cases | are more of a nice bonus. | gred wrote: | Has anybody studied or quantified the evolution of "effective | liberty" over time in the US? Say you buy groceries once per | week. That activity might have triggered 1 governmental control | touchpoint in 1800 (sales tax?), but in 2020 it might have | triggered _many_ more due to increased automation, logging and | third-party delegation. All of this, of course, without | fundamental changes to the Law of the Land -- simply because | some of the assumptions built into our core restrictions on | governmental power no longer hold. | ectopod wrote: | Sales taxes weren't a thing then. Before the 20th century | government played pretty much no part in the average person's | life. | wmf wrote: | From what I've read China's social credit system does not yet | incorporate any non-financial information; that part is more | aspirational. | azekai wrote: | That is the narrative the CCP pushes. 'It is just like a | government run checking score.' But it isn't. Crimes, | including political ones, will penalize your social credit | score. If your score falls too low, you and your children | will become ineligible for government programs and | assistance. | trasz wrote: | [citation needed] | | What you describe is something that is often said, but I'm | yet to see any reliable sources; everything turns out to be | editorials based on some plans that never got implemented. | tehjoker wrote: | Wait until the US public finds out about the concept of a | credit score (new in the 1980s). | mc32 wrote: | Credit score for ghee most part tries to assure lenders you | can repay your debts. | | Social credit score is about how close you hew to proscribed | behavior at large. | mywittyname wrote: | Credit scores are used as a proxy for Ideal Citizenship. It | just so happens to have baked into it enough plausible | deniability as to not run afoul of anti-discrimination | laws. | | Turns out, a lot of "bad" actions result in missed bill | payments. | mc32 wrote: | In a semi anonymous society how else do you suppose one | should determine the creditworthiness of someone? | | It used to be the merchant had to know you and you had to | build up your credit with each merchant over time. Credit | scoring made it easier for merchants and customers to | issue and leverage we credit. | mywittyname wrote: | My comment might come off as an indictment of credit | scores. But it really isn't. | | They absolutely solve the problem that you are pointing | out. But they also serve to kind of solve a whole class | of other problems around identifying behaviors that | correlate with bad credit scores. | | For example, if you're a land lord who vehemently opposes | divorce, it's possible to use a poor credit score as | cover to deny renting to this middle-aged guy who is | clearly just gone through one. | mc32 wrote: | Sure but previous to credit scores what was the option? | References from friends and business acquaintances? | | Sure credit scores aren't perfect but they are better | than the legacy alternative. | salawat wrote: | ...Excuse me? Is there a way that could be better | rephrased? | | What was the option for what? You're replying to a post | about discriminating against a divorcee, but having the | landlord hide it behind the justification of "bad | credit". | | Not to be the missing antecedent police, but are you | referring to by 'ther option' the pre-existing excuse to | paper over arbitrary discrimination, or to practice of | lending/renting in general? | | The answer is sadly important to the final assessment of | meaning. I don't think you mean the former, but I figured | I'd be daft and ask. | duped wrote: | Maybe we shouldn't have mountains of consumer debt | whimsicalism wrote: | My understanding was it basically was providing a way to | incentivize indigent people to behave the law by imposing | penalties for failing to pay fines. | | In the US, fines are mostly meaningless if you are poor as | debtor prisons are (rightfully) illegal. | getcrunk wrote: | In the civil context, which you obviously intended, this | true. Unfortunately many people are (back) in jail | because they can't afford to pay criminal court | fines/probation fees | adventured wrote: | > In the US, fines are mostly meaningless if you are poor | as debtor prisons are (rightfully) illegal. | | You're overwhelmingly correct, however someone is going | to shortly reply to your comment with a link to a story | about how someone somewhere got jailed over a debt and | how debtor prisons are making a comeback. It's | extraordinarily rare in the US. | whimsicalism wrote: | Yes, and also wage garnishment is another thing that is | definitely a common thing. | mc32 wrote: | Wage garnishment is predominantly for child support and | alimony, no? Is that a bad thing? | throwawayboise wrote: | And unpaid taxes. | whimsicalism wrote: | I don't think so. | michaelbrave wrote: | Credit score can affect employment, I.E. you can't get | hired because you are too poor. | artificialLimbs wrote: | Is this actually true, or is it the case that you can't | get financial related jobs because your credit score has | been lowered by your past cases of poor handling of | money? | mc32 wrote: | The education system utterly fails when it comes to | educating students in financial literacy. | | They'd much rather teach them activism than actually give | them useful tools for evaluating their finances and | making good decisions. | artificialLimbs wrote: | Absolutely. | | This is a great primer for those completely unfamiliar: | https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas- | Sowell/dp/0465... | aspenmayer wrote: | Failure to navigate a capitalist system of hoop-jumping | due to lack of funds causes a self-fulfilling prophesy of | poor performance at said hoop-jumping and associated poor | credit scores. Blaming the victim comes to mind. | artificialLimbs wrote: | If I only pay my bills on time does my credit score go up | in the US? Asking because I don't know, but if that is | the case, not sure why you can call it 'hoop jumping'. | | I don't care for the credit companies, they're total | scum. But I'm not sure how to do anything better. | aspenmayer wrote: | Try to build credit with a secured credit card and on a | minimum wage. Decide which bills you have to pay late | this pay period. After years of this, you'll be lucky if | you can convert to an unsecured credit card, let alone | maintain your (low) credit score, let alone improve it. | | Most folks in US can't even afford a $400 emergency | expense. Good luck doing even that when your credit is | maxed out and your car breaks down so you can't work. | mattnewton wrote: | Afaict, your credit score will likely be lower if you | haven't had a credit card open for a long time, run your | balances too close to the limit (available credit) on | those cards, or don't use them at all. My understanding | is that your bills, depending on their type, may not even | bother reporting to the credit agencies, or only report | when they believe you have failed to pay; reliable ones | seem to be big loans like mortgages, student or auto | loans, and then credit cards. Rent, utilities, etc | haven't seemed to affect my credit positively (or if they | do they haven't been noticeable compared to the first | category) | | When I graduated, rented, and paid all my student loans | off early and did not have a credit card my credit score | actually went down significantly until I opened credit | cards and used them regularly. | nitrogen wrote: | Average age of accounts is a pretty big factor in credit | scores. Every bank will probably have its own proprietary | rules for deciding when to offer credit, but the credit | reporting agencies who generate a number use fairly well | known criteria. Amount of credit, number of accounts, | payment history, percentage of credit used, age of | accounts, diversity of types of accounts. | hn8788 wrote: | Yep, that's all that's required for it, no hoops to jump | through. The only catch is if you don't have any debt, | you can't build credit, but it's pretty simple to get a | credit card and pay it off every month. | slongfield wrote: | If they're credit bills, yes. If they're just phone, | power, rent, etc, not unless you've specifically set them | up to go to the credit reporting companies. | nitrogen wrote: | Some corporate landlords report all rental accounts, some | only report if you default. | evancox100 wrote: | Or rent an apartment/house in many cases | yurishimo wrote: | While this is true on a very shallow level, most | landlords are happy to rent to "high risk" tenants with | increased deposits if you talk to them directly instead | of taking your initial rejection at face value. | throaway46546 wrote: | More and more rentals are being gobbled up my big | corporations. Finding someone to talk to who has the | authority to make an exception can be nigh impossible. | Iefthandrule wrote: | Your credit score is run before you can buy a house or rent | an apartment. | | We are already there. | hunterb123 wrote: | The difference between a credit score and a social credit | score system is one is based on debt payment history and | the other based on political dissent & debt payment. | | Currently saying "Lets Go Brandon" doesn't drop your | credit score, in China you may lose quite a few points | for posting that pesky bear that likes honey. | Iefthandrule wrote: | Having an arrest on your record is enough to bar your | from job and housing, even if charges were dropped or you | were found not guilty. That alone is enough of a chilling | effect to affect behavior: for example, staying away from | protests or not questioning a police officer. | | Again, we are already there. | hunterb123 wrote: | A criminal background check is not connected to your | credit score and a convicted criminal charge is not the | same as political dissent. Stop moving goal posts. | | I was arrested once and I got the charge expunged with | community service. Hasn't affected my job applications so | far. | stonepresto wrote: | We're doing it to ourselves. We're the ones who keep clicking | "I agree", who keep feeding these companies. Of course they're | going to look to make a profit off of your data, there's | nothing stopping them because we willingly gave it up. | tremon wrote: | So your suggestion is for everyone to become digital hermits? | Start sending snail mail invoices and writing checks again? | the-dude wrote: | First thing I was told when I arrived in the US in 2001 and was | picked up by a friend from the airport : "If the police says | _pull over to the shoulder_ , stop at the side of the road". | | Second thing : "Credit score is really important". | edgyquant wrote: | Credit score isn't that important really. I have terrible | credit (low 600s) and I was able to finance a car and live in | a nice apartment. It might make buying a house more | expensive, but I've also been able to raise it from the low | 500s in the last year. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-09 23:00 UTC)