That makes sense, because any government agencies that actually have a need for intimate knowledge of your social media footprint don’t actually need your password to harvest ALL the data that network has on you public and private.
There’s no need to involve the courts when the social media networks are complicit. It’s not as if “how” they obtained the data will ever be tested in court, they only need the data for their own internal investigations. Courts and spy agencies don’t have anything to do with it.
I mean maybe if they have an investigation and they want to use that information as evidence sure that would be illegal to use but for background checks any of that information is fair game if they are able to get it. Like if your terms of service specifically say they wont give any information out for any reason, maybe you can sue them if you can prove they got the information with your name attached directly instead of it being sold after being anonymized in aggregate then another company/data broker aggregating other data on you to infer who’s data belongs to who with device footprints then selling that to the government as a service which i mean good luck. But most likely the terms you sign say they will hand over data for criminal investigations or matters of national security to government entities which they can state background checks for high level clearance positions is a matter of national security.
No country is publicizing what checks they do for a high level security clearance check unless they want to give bad actors and easy way to beat their checks. What country is this and whats the exact law you are referencing? If you can provide me direct evidence for that I’ll eat my words but I think you are misunderstanding something if im honest.
That makes sense, because any government agencies that actually have a need for intimate knowledge of your social media footprint don’t actually need your password to harvest ALL the data that network has on you public and private.
deleted by creator
There’s no need to involve the courts when the social media networks are complicit. It’s not as if “how” they obtained the data will ever be tested in court, they only need the data for their own internal investigations. Courts and spy agencies don’t have anything to do with it.
deleted by creator
If that illusion makes you feel safer, then I don’t care enough to argue with you about it.
deleted by creator
They just buy the data en masse from data brokers. All of the process is civil rights theater.
deleted by creator
I mean maybe if they have an investigation and they want to use that information as evidence sure that would be illegal to use but for background checks any of that information is fair game if they are able to get it. Like if your terms of service specifically say they wont give any information out for any reason, maybe you can sue them if you can prove they got the information with your name attached directly instead of it being sold after being anonymized in aggregate then another company/data broker aggregating other data on you to infer who’s data belongs to who with device footprints then selling that to the government as a service which i mean good luck. But most likely the terms you sign say they will hand over data for criminal investigations or matters of national security to government entities which they can state background checks for high level clearance positions is a matter of national security.
deleted by creator
No country is publicizing what checks they do for a high level security clearance check unless they want to give bad actors and easy way to beat their checks. What country is this and whats the exact law you are referencing? If you can provide me direct evidence for that I’ll eat my words but I think you are misunderstanding something if im honest.
deleted by creator