Interesting situation:
The third-party doctrine is a precedent in US jurisdiction that says: when you voluntarily give information to third parties,you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.
It enables the government to simply buy sensitive data that you "voluntarily" handed over to third parties, as in: every company (including, "app") whose services you are using.
Without any warrant that is usually needed, should they want to seize the very same information from you, directly.
The same doctrine also enables judges to tell your lawyer to hand over sensitive documents that you shared with an "#AI" provider to create or polish it using "AI" – the respective provider being considered such a third party.
So, should you support the proposed Surveillance Accountability Act (H. R. 8470), because it tries to ban this overreach?
Or should you oppose it, because that precedent is a brilliant and powerful way to contain, or even roll back, the spread of "AI"?
Questions:
Do you trust them?
Is this fully legit
or
Are there devils in the details ?
#TheSurveillanceAccountabilityAct
GOP Congressmembers Massie and Boebert work with#NaomiBrockwell on #HR8470
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60IKOar3kY8&t=1220s&pp=2AHECZACAQ%3D%3D
Republicans Boebert and Massie were the ones who came up with this? Why didn't Democrats do it?
#HR8470 : Either this is legit, or there are devils in the details. Either way, you can look this over yourselves
#SurveillanceAccountabilityAct
#tech #privacy #digitalprivacy #4thAmendment
HR8470
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that all searches that significantly impinge on the privacy or security of a person require a warrant based on probable cause, to provide a right of action for violations of Fourth Amendment rights, and for other purposes.
📢 Introduced in House
DeFlock 29 Palms
Penguin Rebellion
MusiqueNow ✡️ 🇵🇸 🌍
Bill Bot