IRS Accessed Massive Database of Americans Flights Without a Warrant (404media.co)
- Reference: 0180127187
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/11/18/1850240/irs-accessed-massive-database-of-americans-flights-without-a-warrant
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/irs-accessed-massive-database-of-americans-flights-without-a-warrant/
> The IRS [1]accessed a database of hundreds of millions of travel records , which show when and where a specific person flew and the credit card they used, without obtaining a warrant, according to a letter signed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and shared with 404 Media. The country's major airlines, including Delta, United Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest, funnel customer records to a data broker they co-own called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), which then sells access to peoples' travel data to government agencies.
>
> The IRS case in the letter is the clearest example yet of how agencies are searching the massive trove of travel data without a search warrant, court order, or similar legal mechanism. Instead, because the data is being sold commercially, agencies are able to simply buy access. In the letter addressed to nine major airlines, the lawmakers urge them to shut down the data selling program. Update: after this piece was published, ARC said it already planned to shut down the program.
>
> "Disclosures made by the IRS to Senator Wyden confirm that it did not follow federal law and its own policies in purchasing airline data from ARC," the letter reads. The letter says the IRS "confirmed that it did not conduct a legal review to determine if the purchase of Americans' travel data requires a warrant."
[1] https://www.404media.co/irs-accessed-massive-database-of-americans-flights-without-a-warrant/
$500k (Score:2)
I fly occasionally, where do I collect my $500k per infraction ?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say "Class Action?" boys and girls? I thought you could. Now we just need to find a law firm willing to take on all the major air carriers at once.
Re: (Score:2)
The sale of the data wasn't the issue was it? From what i read it was the fact that the IRS bought and searched the data without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be easy. The airlines could agree to pay the lawyers $40,000,000 and admit no wrongdoing. Maybe with any luck the airlines would also agree to provide a voucher for a bowl of nuts to anyone who flew in the past 10 years.
Oops, I've been caught! (Score:2)
Sure, Mr. Officer, I'll never make that "mistake" again!
I'll make others.
Icky, but (Score:2)
if the companies are selling the data to anyone with a checkbook, I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase
Just spitballing here, but, the Constitution might have something to say about it?
Re: (Score:2)
The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear, no?
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-4-1/ALDE_00000793/
br>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Having, for example, a relatively low AGI while taking
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that this is not something I want the government to be doing, what part of a database maintained by the airlines constitutes your person, house, papers, or effects? If the government demands access that would be one thing, but if the airlines say "hey, wanna buy our data?" and the government says "hell yeah" that is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that....if it is MY database, and I'm willing to let the govt search it, whether they pay me or not, how is it a COTUS violation? My property. I give got access. I'm not asking it for a warrant, so why should it need one?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your database, it belongs to the airlines. You must have agreed to them collecting and selling your personal data in the terms of the flight contract/ticket you purchased. This is just like the way you consented to your smart TV collecting and selling all your data because you plugged it in. I wish there was a legislative fix for this sort of thing in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, dumbass, I was making that argument as the airlines.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with mine, which i don't think you understood at all.
Re: (Score:2)
> selling the data to anyone with a checkbook
Anyone?
Asking for a friend in Chinese intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.
Jim-bob is likely to face some serious problems if he smashes down your door and drags you away in a pre-dawn raid.
The IRS people get a promotion.
This is why the Constitution places strict limits on the actions of government agents.
(in its original interpretation)
Re: (Score:2)
> if the companies are selling the data to anyone with a checkbook, I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.
Jim-bob doesn't have qualified immunity and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
No 404 Media Account? (Score:2)
Who is willing to provide an option for those without a 404 Media account?
Fucking clown shoes (Score:3)
> In the letter addressed to nine major airlines, the lawmakers urge them to shut down the data selling program.
You guys write the laws, how about making it illegal for the government to buy such data without a warrant? You could also make it illegal to sell the data without consumer consent while you are at it. Cover things from both ends...
Re: (Score:2)
> You guys write the laws, how about making it illegal for the government to buy such data without a warrant? You could also make it illegal to sell the data without consumer consent while you are at it. Cover things from both ends...
Yeah, that. If they can't make it illegal to collect the data, make it hard to sell without consent, thus reducing its value and disincentivizing its collection. And of course the crippling penalties in the event that such collected data gets hacked or leaked. Don't wanna risk it? Don't collect it.
But of course these are Business-Killing Regulations that are unlikely to see daylight in the USA, where privacy-rape is a valid business model.
End run around the 4th. (Score:2)
I think we may see a court case go all the way to the Supreme Court on matters related to or similar to this.
If the government purchases this information is it unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th amendment?
There are other data sources the government purchases as well as the whole Flock camera issue.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the government purchases this information is it unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th amendment?
No. The company offered the information to the government. Paying a fee for access does not meaningfully change the fact that the information was provided voluntarily.
If we want to protect privacy, we need to outlaw collection/retention beyond necessary of the data.
Re: (Score:2)
> No. The company offered the information to the government.
It's not the company's information. It's mine.
Re: (Score:2)
> Tell the airlines that you are traveling overseas for a medical procedure... then privacy is covered by HIPAA.
Sigh. No it isn't. The airline is not a provider of medical services, it is not regulated by HIPAA.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's not the company's information. It's mine.
Not in American law. We have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -which includes the right to publish information that we know about an individual. Information belongs to the one who knows it. There are few restrictions on what can be done with that information -and the restrictions are explicitly defined in law.
In the EU information about a person is considered to be their information, and generally cannot be shared without their consent.
It is a fundamental difference.
Re: (Score:2)
> We have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -which includes the right to publish information that we know about an individual.
Really? Meet my friends in counter intelligence. They'd like a word with you. They have a comfy room for you in GITMO while they're talking.
Simple, basic question (Score:1)
Why is the government, at any level, buying where non-indicted, presumed innocent people are traveling, for any reason at all, let alone without a warrant? The "Thrid party rule" of evidence is simply a power grab our founders would be horrified to see happen. It is quite clear they distrusted and despised all forms of government surveillance and believed only in the most restricted circumstance should it be allowed, and only then under the supervision of a judge. Having been given a worm's eye view of some
Whoooptie doo. Elon. Doge. Everyone does it. (Score:2)
Unauthorized access to data is the just pickpocketing on a hyperscale for contemporary times.
Elon and the Dogs of Efficiency drained how much data? For free. Unauthorized.
My conjecture is that only a small fraction of the population can understand concepts...
Like "data."
Want to put a person to sleep? Talk about data. Databases.
Want to quote me?
"People don't understand it, if you can't punch it or fuck it."
You're fired! (Score:2)
"did not conduct a legal review to determine if the purchase of Americans' travel data requires a warrant." - Whoever made this statement needs to be fired now. Of course you need a warrant to access any citizen's data, of any type. This over-reaching bullshit needs to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I agree with you from a moral standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
If you want to make the argument that "data about you" is "your data" that's fine, but the presumption here is that it's the airline's data, and it is offering it freely (as in speech, not as in beer) to the government. Where is the fourth amendment implication? It is not your "house, person, papers, or effects," it is the airline's and they're happy to let the government sort thro
Paywall and something missing (Score:2)
What's the story behind the paywall? Okay, subscription wall. The headline and summary, while disturbing, is missing important information such as WHEN this happened.
When did this start? (Score:2)
[1]https://archive.is/Ot2Er [archive.is]
unpaywalled link
[1] https://archive.is/Ot2Er
Raises hand ... (Score:2)
I'm confused. Anyone know why the IRS would want/need people's airline travel records and payment info?
Re: (Score:2)
> Anyone know why the IRS would want/need people's airline travel records and payment info?
People claiming deductions for business travel maybe? Target investigations? For instance identify people who traveled abroad to places that get used as tax shelters. They are mining the data to some purpose.
Re: Raises hand ... (Score:3)
You mean like stingray celltowers gathering warrantless info that LE feels entitled to at taxpayer expense?
Re: (Score:2)
>> Anyone know why the IRS would want/need people's airline travel records and payment info?
> People claiming deductions for business travel maybe? Target investigations? For instance identify people who traveled abroad to places that get used as tax shelters. They are mining the data to some purpose.
This. IRS knows they aren't getting much blood from a starving stone. Another reason why $400K+ is a reasonable threshold of income to suggest a higher chance of Federal audit.
Auditing everything from business travel expenses to the actual (private) plane itself to ensure it's being used as deducted is probably low-hanging fruit that rewards well.
Re: Raises hand ... (Score:3)
And the mere possibility of that happening is why progressives are in favor of the IRS being allowed to ignore the constitution. rsilvergun will go wee wee wee all the way home if he doesn't get his EBT while drinkypoo, a feeder, complains that rsilvergun's right to maintain obesity has been violated.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be clear about this, what they are doing is fully constitutionally permitted (as adjudicated by the US supreme court) use of business records which have no constitutional expectation of privacy under the US constitution .
Specifically, the data brokers were build with the aim of allowing advertising companies to buy this data so that they could profit from it. That allows all sorts of dodgy practices like dynamic pricing which allows companies to take advantage when they get into a monopoly or cartel si
Re: (Score:2)
What WILL happen is, that the current administration will use it to attack their enemies, and you will keep your yap shut because it's "owning the libs" and fits your agenda
Hypocrisy is a republican's favorite dish, and you demonstrate that with every post
Re: Raises hand ... (Score:2)
Have to agree. If the IRS is conducting an audit and has reason to believe someone isnt being honest about their business expenses, its one thing. Its another to vacuum data at taxpayer expense with zero accountability or oversight.
Re: Raises hand ... (Score:2)
AC: You are nothing more than a useless troll with no life. Kindly refrain from responding to any comments ive made on this platform.
Re: (Score:2)
a EULA does not change anything. The IRS is bound by constitutional limitations that you can't sign away in a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
> a EULA does not change anything. The IRS is bound by constitutional limitations that you can't sign away in a contract.
Those constitutional limits only protect things which have an "expectation of privacy" which it's very likely these records don't count as having due to various dubious supreme court rulings in the US. These are normal business records sold on the open market. Why should the IRS, trying to find criminals, be given less access than advertising companies?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> its one thing. Its another to vacuum data at taxpayer expense with zero accountability or oversight.
But also entirely predictable. Anyone paying attention for the last 30 years or so should realize by now that:
1) Data aggregated for any purpose will eventually be abused.
It is probably the only thing as certain as death and taxes... (sorry could not resist)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at data-sets and seeing the pattern of money laundering is part of the job of IRS investigators -seeing signs that there is criminal activity going on and then deciding to launch an investigation is something that they should do. There is no need for a warrant to look at data that is offered. A fee for data-access does not meaningfully change the fact that it is offered.
If we want privacy, we need to outlaw collecting (or retaining after necessary usage) of the data. Making it illegal to sell or
Re: (Score:2)
If you read even the summary you would see that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of the top of my head...
People trying to mis-characterize leisure/personal travel as business expenses. Claims of S-corp business related deductions and credits are generally cited high audit trigger risks. I assume that is because the IRS at least believes they are widely abused.
Just as a general top line way to flag people who have life styles that don't seem align well to their reported incomes...and by extension are likely not reporting things they are required to do. The US tax codes is very well weir
Re: (Score:2)
> because you want to take a free trip to Monaco on the company dime
Any reasons I'd have for traveling to Monaco would tend to make the actual travel expenses look like loose pocket change. I'd much rather (illegally) characterize a trip as recreational than have to explain to Herr TaxMan what kind of business I was conducting. After all, we are living in a regime of strict [1]capital controls. [wikipedia.org] On the other hand, those who don't know how to move assets other than to stuff them into carry-on luggage don't deserve to keep them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act