All corrections
LessWrong April 3, 2026 at 03:49 AM

www.lesswrong.com/posts/rNpGFodLTFvhqLmK6/intelligence-dissolves-privacy

1 correction found

1
Claim
but require permission to look at it (a ‘warrant’).
Correction

That is too broad: in the U.S., many third-party-held records can be obtained with a subpoena or court order rather than a warrant, and some sensitive data can also be purchased from brokers.

Full reasoning

U.S. law does not generally require a warrant whenever law enforcement wants records held by third parties.

  • A Congressional Research Service legal overview of the Stored Communications Act says government entities can compel disclosure using "a court-issued warrant, a court order, or an administrative subpoena" depending on the category of information.
  • A House Judiciary Committee report explains the distinction even more explicitly for electronic-service providers: subscriber information such as names, addresses, and phone numbers may be obtained "by issuing a subpoena"; more sensitive non-content records require a different court order; only contents of communications require a probable-cause warrant.
  • That same House report also notes a modern loophole: providers can pass data to third parties, and the government can then purchase it from those third parties without the otherwise required process.

So the post's parenthetical equating legal access with "a warrant" is factually inaccurate as a description of U.S. practice. Warrants are required for some categories of data, but not for many others.

3 sources
Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0