Ban the government from buying, from companies, personal information it could not collect without a warrant
In short
- The government can no longer buy from companies any personal information that would need a warrant to collect.
- Even when it buys location or browsing records, it needs a judge's permission first.
- The loophole of getting the same information from foreign agencies is closed too.
- Information obtained by breaking these rules cannot be used as evidence in court.
If this comes true
Delivery drivers trying to form a union at a distribution center gather for a night meeting with their phones in their pockets, and talk freely without worrying that the police will learn who came.
Perhaps
A detective might keep searching a map for an abducted girl while waiting for permission, when buying phone location records could have found her in a day.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal treats two ways a government agency can get personal information, collecting it itself and paying to buy it, as the same thing in law. It covers every agency with coercive power, such as the police, intelligence agencies, immigration control and tax authorities, and their contractors. Types of information that would need a judge's warrant if collected directly from the person, such as phone location history, records of web browsing and searches, purchase history, and data for matching face photos, cannot be obtained from data brokers or app companies without a warrant that names a specific person and purpose. Buying large amounts of data in bulk and narrowing it down later is not allowed even with a warrant. Receiving from foreign government agencies information that domestic law would not let the agency collect, such as information about its own citizens, is treated the same way. There are two exceptions. One is when there is an immediate danger to life: a judge must approve the acquisition within forty-eight hours, and if approval is not given, the data must be deleted. The other is statistics that have been processed so individuals cannot be traced, and only when an independent body has checked that processing. If the rules are broken, the information cannot be used as evidence in court, the contract is void, and the officials who made the decision face personal penalties. The agency that audits government spending picks out data purchases from each agency's expenses and reports them to the legislature.
BenefitsThe path around warrants with money is closed
The biggest effect is that the warrant, as a brake on power, regains its proper function instead of being outrun by changes in technology. When the government wants to investigate someone, it must go through the step of explaining its reasons to a judge, so the idea of "buying everyone's data just in case" no longer works. This reduces the worry that actions such as going to a meeting, contacting a reporter or visiting a particular hospital will end up as records on a government desk without people knowing, so people can speak and gather without holding back. Freedom of the press and freedom of association can be used only when there is not just the wording of the law but also the peace of mind of not being watched. Also, since data brokers lose the government as a big buyer, the business of quietly collecting and selling people's locations and behavior becomes less profitable. Furthermore, because information gained by breaking the rules is no use as evidence, there is no point for investigators on the ground in taking shortcuts, and the rules are easier to keep.
DrawbacksInvestigations may slow, and lives that could have been saved may be lost
The cost of this proposal is by no means small. Location records and purchase histories have in fact been very powerful in tracking down child abductions, human trafficking, fraud rings and terror plots. Getting a warrant takes time and effort, and in cases where not even a suspect's name is known at first, applying for a warrant can itself be difficult. Even with the emergency exception, there will certainly be times when leads vanish while people hesitate over whether something counts as an "immediate danger." Those who commit crimes will act knowing about this limit. Also, restricting the exchange of information with foreign agencies could weaken cooperation on crimes that cross borders, and other countries might come to trust us less. Furthermore, this proposal binds only the government, and companies still collect people's behavior and use it for advertising and pricing. People's privacy remains in the hands of companies while only the hands of those who protect public safety are tied, and there is a part of that criticism that this proposal cannot fully answer.
Learn the background
In many societies, the law says the government needs a judge's warrant to listen to someone's calls or search their home. But today, through smartphone apps and advertising systems, companies pile up huge records of where people go, what they look up and whom they meet, and data brokers buy and sell them. If a government agency buys from this market, it can learn cheaply, and about many people at once, what once could be learned only by tailing or wiretapping, without going through the warrant rules. The ones who suffer are people who are most likely to be harmed when they are known, such as people who join protests, people who give information to reporters, people who visit hospitals or places of worship, and immigrants. It does not stop because the law limited "collecting" but never imagined "buying." For investigators, it has become a convenient tool they do not want to give up. Brokers have valuable customers, and most lawmakers fear being seen as weak on public safety. On top of that, purchases are handled as ordinary procurement of goods, so they are almost invisible from the outside.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes