> CUI is not classified information, as its name indicates, but it should, generally speaking, be protected with access controls and not widely disseminated. Wyden is clearly not a fan of this labeling, which he described as a "made up designation with no basis in law." CUI was created by an executive order from President Obama in 2010.<p>This is the bigger problem. Classified documents have a mandatory declassification date that is only overridden in special circumstances. CUI can last indefinitely because it's an extra-legal construction designed to stay outside the classification system.
How about passing a law explicitly covering the kind of information being collected and sold as actually being private, and against the law to share with anyone without a warrant?
> This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to push through the confirmation.<p>So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. At least it shines a bit light on the whole charade. Not that it makes much of a difference for me, since I'm not an US citizen, but imho the easiest and best solution would be to stop private companies from gobbling up and selling private data. But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we?
it is absolutely amazing that this plus the "military facilities being mapped via Strava data" etc never lead to a serious discussion about privacy in general in the US. why does the government allow this commercial database to exist at all?
I think Wyden is great, and broadly support the aim here. But the specifics just don't work for me. I mean, the argument presented by the article is that this is a fourth amendment violation: the government is conducting an unreasonable search by buying personal data.<p>But... sorry, that's batshit. Can there be <i>ANY</i> definition for "reasonable" more apt than "available for legal purchase on the public market"? If we don't want this stuff for sale, we should pass a law and get it out of the market.<p>Absent that, honestly? I think the NSA is one of the <i>least</i> threatening purchasers of this junk.
So it's like a canary: the senator has the answer but wants to make it public.<p>If the answer was "no" then he wouldn't be pushing for it, so the answer is obviously yes, they are buying data of american citizens in bulk, warrantlessly
The main source that sells a continuous cross-platform civilian tracking dragnet (probably to the NSA) is Peter Thiel's company Palantir.<p>Thiel is at the center of so much other sci-fi military industrial complex stuff, it's scary.
I’d be surprised if they’re “buying browsing data” instead of just having a tap on all major ISPs and siphoning everything off directly, or compelling ISPs to do this with NSLs.
I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar . But if I understand the fourth ammendment protects you USA from government unreasonable search.<p>I say it a lot, the state is nolonger the main threat to your freedom. This data gathering, building detailed dossiers on AL, of us all, by faceless business operators is a genuine, immediate threat<p>It must be stopped
Complete nonsense. My uninformed guess is that they aren't buying from some political crony, so the crony's friend in the congress or senate (Ron Wyden probably) is rattling some cages.
You could say that I'm a "Republican", but I love reading articles where it's a Democrat doing things that are obviously correct. It shatters the divide that politics and media try to create.<p>That's why, while party platforms are vastly different in core values, I don't care to be grouped into any party but my own beliefs, judging actions and people individually, not collectively.