this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
351 points (98.1% liked)

Selfhosted

40152 readers
650 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are you being serious? They release your data to the police if they ask

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The Fourth Amendment will affect police, but it won't restrict a random person who is given access to something from turning over whatever data they want to police.

Say I hire a painter, and the painter is painting my house's interior, and sees a bloody knife in my house. He can report that to the police. But, remove the painter from the picture, and the police could not enter to look for such a thing absent a warrant.

'course, the flip side of that is that if the police get a warrant, then they can enter whether I want them in the house or not, whereas the painter can only enter because I choose to let him in.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That analogy is tired in the age of mass data collection without consent

[–] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

I'm just telling you that that's the way things legally are. You're arguing about how you feel that they should be.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just police, any armed investigatory unit or state sponsored militia. The idea of a “police” force was pretty vague at the time, so the umbrella covers much more than it initially intended to.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which makes no difference in the provided example.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I never said it did, just a relevant fun fact.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is my car a random person? I thought it was an object that I own.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You're getting a bit off-track here. The scenario is this: the company that provides the software for your care collects data. This part is unconcerned with Amendment 4. Amendment 4 prohibits the State from collecting information and searching unreasonably. It does not prohibit the private company that provides the software from doing so. That is what privacy laws are intended to protect against, not Amendment 4.

Amendment 4 also does not prevent the company that collected that data from providing it to the police upon request. Amendment 4 (and the rest of the US Constitution) applies only to the State. Private companies and private individuals are not bound by it.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Youll own nothing and like it

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You’re willingly giving this data to the manufacturer, at which point they’re free to do with that data whatever they please, according to the terms of the agreement you sign, including giving that data to government authorities. The government isn’t unlawfully searching and seizing because they aren’t even forcing the manufacturer to give up the data, they are freely giving it as they are allowed.

This isn’t to say I’m defending the privacy violations or the government, but it is the case that this situation isn’t protected by the constitution, we have to and should make a specific law for it.

[–] xubu@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are implying that any data gathered will be delivered to the government upon request (unsure if you are implying with or without a warrant). If you can show me from this article, or even this case, regarding this privacy case that that happened, then yes I agree with you and the fourth amendment applies.

But this issue is between private entities which generally precludes amendments from being applicable. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the infotainment systems collected and stored personal data without consent and violated Washington's Privacy Act.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not implying anything

An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.