It is my position that my personal data is proprietary. I own it. It is mine. Period. I've never given permission for anyone to harvest my habits. Those that are harvesting my data, are in my opinion, operating in a way that is completely inconsistent with the United States Constitution. I have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Unconstitutional Mutherfukers
Should be lynched in the public square
Unfortunately, you've probably explicitly agreed otherwise numerous times when you've affirmatively agreed to various Terms of Service agreements for all sorts of online services. As I see it, the problem is a combination of weak privacy laws and lack of compelling, affordable, and easy to use paid alternatives for a lot of digital communication services. This is exacerbated by social network effects where you can't easily opt out of speaking with your family/friends online since they all happen to be on services that harvest your data. You don't have to join, but you miss out on a lot of digital communication with your own network, which is pretty lame.t is my position that my personal data is proprietary. I own it. It is mine.
Period. I've never given permission for anyone to harvest my habits.
and that is the beauty of the Constitutional argument - it matters not what specific behavior I may or may not have engaged in because I cannot grant authority to some other party to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with Constitutional principles and precepts. The mass harvesting of my personal data in the absence of a Warrant as specified by the Constitution is simply illegal. Of course, in an era where the Supreme Court blatantly and in full view of the public usurps the authority of Congress granted under Article I section 4[1] regarding the manner of holding elections, as they did with their decision Citizens United . . . in such an era obviously it would be fool hardy to hold one's breath waiting for either Congress or the Court to assert that it is unConstitutional for the private sector to harvest the data of private individuals.
But perhaps they may be induced some how to hold theirs . . .
Not feasible. :( Edit: Yes, your synopsis is spot on though.Unfortunately, you've probably explicitly agreed otherwise numerous times when you've affirmatively agreed to various Terms of Service agreements for all sorts of online services
Word. It's sad that any of our archaic, out-of-touch politicians don't understand that the Fourth Amendment was totally thrown out the window by several government branches. The internet is the most powerful piece of technology EVER, and our policy makers can't grasp that. Perhaps the alternative is worse; that they do actually understand the gravity of NSA activities, and are such corrupt little puppets that they're a lost cause. Either way... unconstitutional mutherfukers.
It isn't just the 4th - their own authority to oversee elections granted to Congress - Article 1 section 4[1] - and I presume elsewhere as well - there is an attorney from Burlington who makes the argument that the Supreme Court overstepped it's authority with Citizens United. It is curious that Congress itself has not made that argument and simply told the court to step off.