[NFVLCP]

Previous thread, specifically a critical question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137491

Also, if this data is for sale then it's a reasonable bet that other governments have bought it too (i.e., Russia, China, etc). Is that "legal", then? What's the difference?

[lesuorac]

Well, the critical answer had a very large flaw in it.

The 4th amendment mostly prohibits seizures by the government. It has nothing to do with what the government is allowed to have [1].

Private data is not protected by the 4th amendment anymore than public data is. The government may not seize your private data without a warrant. This applies to say Equifax as well, the government cannot seize Equifax's records on you. However, giving Equifax money and Equifax giving data is an exchange / transaction / not a seizure so it doesn't matter.

A much more minor flaw is the argument that "you or I" can't buy this data. 1st because it's just false. Journalists have fun buying this data all the time. 2nd sometimes goods are sold to qualified customers. Try buying a jet fighter; its do-able, people own harriers (just not the guy Pepsi owed one to).

---

The sub-point in the critical answer that I think is the much bigger deal is the lack of transparency. Your publicly funded police department should not be able to obscure where they're spending money.

---

However, the article brings up an example not address by the critical answer. "This included paying an administrator at a private parcel delivery service to search people's packages and send them to the DEA".

That sounds a lot like a search by the government (or it's agent).

[1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/