In light of the passage of the renewal of FISA 702 this is interesting if kind of nonsensical to me.

Quote:

---

Dubbed the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale, the legislation passed 219-199. It requires law enforcement and other government entities to get a warrant before buying information from third-party data brokers who purchase information gleaned from apps.

Division over the bill forged familiar fault lines to those seen in the debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), linking both conservatives and progressives who want greater privacy protections and pitting them against members from both parties who fear such protections could undercut an important law enforcement tool.

Those in favor of the bill argue the government should have to get a warrant before buying the commercially available information to carry out law enforcement activities.

---

Quote:

---

This bill now goes to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where its future is less certain; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is driving progress there. Still, its passage is not impossible, not with a bill that actually does have supporters from both parties.

---

🚨Great news! The House passed one good bill today! 🚨

My bipartisan 4th Amendment is Not for Sale Act puts an end to the government’s practice of buying its way around the Bill of Rights by purchasing Americans’ personal data. Now it’s time for the Senate to do the same.

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) April 18, 2024

LINK

Very good bill. Will senate screw up? Probably.

Im Gipper said:

---

Very good bill. Will senate screw up? Probably.

---

I don't even think those commies will take it up

Although I agree with this bill it just doesn;t make sense the government can spy on American Citizens without a warrant under 702 but need a warrant to buy a commercially available product?

Didn't the CDC buy that information as part of their covid tracking and tracing on potential exposures?

Im Gipper said:

---

Very good bill. Will senate screw up? Probably.

---

Even if they pass it, that dipsh** in the Oval Office will never sign it.

This seems dumb, even if well intentioned. It's not a search and seizure or invasion of privacy if the information is publicly available for sale. The users consented to that when they signed on for whatever platform collected the information and is selling it. It's not the government's fault those people failed to consider the government may be the one buying.