Category: Privacy

Last week, EPIC joined an amicus brief written by the ACLU seeking to protect people’s right to be free from warrantless pole camera surveillance, a technique in which police set up cameras on utility poles to monitor a person’s homes for months. The case, United States v. Hay, is currently on appeal in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the case, federal agents installed a camera on a utility pole across the street from Mr. Hay’s home without first obtaining a search warrant. The camera operated continuously for months, recording everything that happened in Mr. Hay’s porch, front yard, driveway, and the front of his home. The agents could watch the feed live, go back through previous recordings, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to capture intimate details such as license plate numbers or details about what people were carrying into and out of the house.

The amicus brief explained that this search violated the Fourth Amendment because it violated Mr. Hay’s reasonable expectation of privacy. People do not expect that the police can or would continuously monitor their homes for months. The camera could unveil extremely sensitive information: when someone left to pray, who was visiting them, what they bought, and what their daily patterns were. Pole cameras have new features that increase the police’s surveillance powers. Without forcing police to get a warrant, police could set up similar cameras in front of anybody or everybody’s home. All these concerns are especially salient for people who cannot afford to install high fences, hedges, or who rent.

The Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ACLU of Kansas, and the ACLU of Colorado also joined the amicus brief. EPIC regularly files amicus briefs in cases urging courts to require search warrants when new technologies expand the government’s surveillance powers, especially in cases involving pole cameras.

A newly released Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinion from April 2022 revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has continued to abuse its access to information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), including by searching for racial justice protestors, activist groups, and political campaign donors. The FISC detailed the FBI’s “pattern of conducting broad, suspicionless queries” of information collected under Section 702, a sweeping warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance authority. Although the FISC ultimately approved the FBI’s revised querying guidelines, it emphasized that the FBI’s compliance issues “have proven to be persistent and widespread” and warned that further noncompliance may require other, stronger responses from the FISC.

EPIC recently published several posts—including one on backdoor searches—as part of a new blog series focused on explaining Section 702 and the need to reform it. EPIC has also urged the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to recommend prohibiting warrantless backdoor searches and has joined a coalition of civil liberties groups proposing broad reform to Section 702 and related surveillance authorities.

Jeramie Scott, EPIC Senior Counsel & Director of the Project on Surveillance Oversight, released the following statement regarding the most recent FISC opinion:

“The FISC’s April 2022 opinion is an indictment of the FBI’s abuse of Section 702, and a clear indication that—despite its repeated promises to reform itself—the Bureau continues to use sweeping foreign surveillance authorities to conduct warrantless searches of innocent Americans. The FBI’s actions over the years are why surveillance authorities must come with meaningful transparency, oversight, and accountability measures as well as limitations that actually protect our privacy. It’s time for Congress to step in and put an end to the government’s warrantless surveillance of Americans.”

If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you’ll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

When Elon Musk bought Twitter, many figures in alternative media really thought they’d be getting re-platformed.  Personally, I found it hilarious that Musk was willing to spend $44 billion because he missed Babylon Bee. But Twitter’s new CEO, Linda Yaccarino, has some of us questioning Musk’s long game. 

Is he really a champion of free speech?  Or was this a plan, all along, to turn Twitter into the American equivalent of WeChat?  How much can we really trust him to stand up for the First Amendment?

Let’s look a little more closely at Linda Yaccarino first.

Before moving to Twitter, she was NBCUniversal’s Chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships. During her decade-plus at NBC, she helped the network transition from a traditional broadcasting network to a modern media company, establishing partnerships with companies like Apple, Snapchat, Buzzfeed, and YouTube to increase NBC’s online presence dramatically.  

This is a woman who knows in what direction the winds are blowing and gets things done.

From a purely business perspective, her choice as Twitter’s CEO makes sense.  Twitter lost many of its big advertisers after Musk’s takeover.  Their revenue in December 2022 was down more than 70% from the year before.  Musk needs to start rebuilding his relationships with advertisers, and Yaccarino looks like the perfect person to do it.  

Yaccarino has conservative credentials.  Liberals hate her. After all, she was a Trump appointee to the Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.  She follows Ron DeSantis and Libs of TikTok on Twitter. 

But…

She is also the World Economic Forum’s Chairman of the Taskforce on the Future of Work.   The WEF has always favored heavy censorship.  In the OP’s January article about the WEF’s annual meeting, we pointed out member Vera Jourova’s hint about illegal hate speech, “which you will soon have in the U.S.”  Looking at comments made by Yaccarino, she seems to be on the same page.

In an interview with Musk on April 18, Yaccarino applauded Twitter’s decision to promote “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.”  This means that they will de-amplify voices that violate policies concerning hateful content and violent speech.  At this point, I’m pretty sure we all know how arbitrary these usage policies are.  They’re just a way to deplatform anyone politically inconvenient.

In the same interview, Yaccarino also made it clear that she wants marketers to have protection for their ad campaigns. She gives platforms to people willing to pay the most.  And this mindset is why she’s so successful, but…

May 18th, 1825 was the birthday of Daniel Baird Wesson (of Smith and Wesson fame).

On May 18th, 1980, Mount St. Helens in Washington erupted, causing a massive avalanche and killing 57 people. Ash from the volcanic eruption fell as far away as Minnesota.

—

A couple of new listings at SurvivalRealty.com  –one in Washington, and one in Oregon:

—

SurvivalBlog Writing Contest

Today we present another entry for Round 106 of the SurvivalBlog non-fiction writing contest. The prizes for this round include:

First Prize:

1. The photovoltaic power specialists at Quantum Harvest LLC  are providing a store-wide 10% off coupon. Depending on the model chosen, this could be worth more than $2000.
2. A Gunsite Academy Three Day Course Certificate. This can be used for any of their one, two, or three-day course (a $1,095 value),
3. Two cases of Mountain House freeze-dried assorted entrees in #10 cans, courtesy of Ready Made Resources (a $350 value),
4. A $250 gift certificate good for any product from Sunflower Ammo,
5. American Gunsmithing Institute (AGI) is providing a $300 certificate good towards any of their DVD training courses.
6. Two sets of The Civil Defense Manual, (in two volumes) — a $193 value — kindly donated by the author, Jack Lawson.

Second Prize:

1. A course certificate from onPoint Tactical for the prize winner’s choice of three-day civilian courses, excluding those restricted for military or government teams. Three-day onPoint courses normally cost $795.
2. A SIRT STIC AR-15/M4 Laser Training Package, courtesy of Next Level Training, that has a combined retail value of $679
3. A $300 gift certificate from Good2Goco.com, good for any of their products: Home freeze dryers, pressure canners, Country Living grain mills, Emergency Essentials foods, and much more.
4. Two 1,000-foot spools of full mil-spec U.S.-made 750 paracord (in-stock colors only) from www.TOUGHGRID.com (a $240 value).
5. Two Super Survival Pack seed collections, a $150 value, courtesy of Seed for Security, LLC,
6. A transferable $150 FRN purchase credit from Elk Creek Company, toward the purchase of any pre-1899 antique gun. There is no paperwork required for delivery of pre-1899 guns into most states, making them the last bastion of firearms purchasing privacy!

Third Prize:

1. EBL is providing an EBL Voyager 500-Watt Power Station with deep cycle lithium batteries, providing reliable 120 Volt AC and DC (12 Volt and USB) power for emergencies or outdoor use. (A $399 value.)
2. Three sets each of made-in-USA regular and wide-mouth reusable canning lids. (This is a total of 300 lids and 600 gaskets.) This prize is courtesy of Harvest Guard (a $270 value)
3. A Royal Berkey water filter, courtesy of Directive 21 (a $275 value),
4. Montana Survival Seed is providing a $225 gift code for any items on its website, including organic non-GMO seeds, fossils, 1812-1964 US silver, jewelry, botany books, and Montana beeswax.
5. A transferable…

In comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), EPIC urged the Commission to minimize allowable charges for security costs and site fees, and to require secure accommodations for attorney-client privileged communications on prison phone and video-visitation systems. The Commission is implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act of 2022, passed to expand the Commission’s authority to regulate video-conferencing and other jail and prison communications systems. The act gives the FCC the power and instruction to lower often exorbitant rates charged to the friends and families of incarcerated people.

EPIC highlighted the troubling practice of passing off the costs of unneccessary surveillance onto consumers, and for facilities to enjoy kickbacks from these fees. EPIC also urged the Commission to act swiftly to require accommodations that would allow lawyers to video-call and email their clients without breaching attorney-client privilege. The comments also urged the FCC to read its existing authorities broadly to regulate e-messaging systems in jails and prisons. These messaging systems are a key link between incarcerated people and their loved ones but are remarkably expensive and provide no privacy whatsoever.

EPIC previously filed an amicus brief seeking to protect attorney-client privileged information from cell-phone searches at the border and regularly engages with Congress and the FCC to protect phone privacy.

On May 7, 1867 Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel patented dynamite in England. This was the first of three patents he would receive for the explosive.

—

SurvivalBlog Writing Contest

Today we present another entry for Round 106 of the SurvivalBlog non-fiction writing contest. The prizes for this round include:

First Prize:

1. The photovoltaic power specialists at Quantum Harvest LLC  are providing a store-wide 10% off coupon. Depending on the model chosen, this could be worth more than $2000.
2. A Gunsite Academy Three Day Course Certificate. This can be used for any of their one, two, or three-day course (a $1,095 value),
3. Two cases of Mountain House freeze-dried assorted entrees in #10 cans, courtesy of Ready Made Resources (a $350 value),
4. A $250 gift certificate good for any product from Sunflower Ammo,
5. American Gunsmithing Institute (AGI) is providing a $300 certificate good towards any of their DVD training courses.
6. Two sets of The Civil Defense Manual, (in two volumes) — a $193 value — kindly donated by the author, Jack Lawson.

Second Prize:

1. A course certificate from onPoint Tactical for the prize winner’s choice of three-day civilian courses, excluding those restricted for military or government teams. Three-day onPoint courses normally cost $795.
2. A SIRT STIC AR-15/M4 Laser Training Package, courtesy of Next Level Training, that has a combined retail value of $679
3. A $300 gift certificate from Good2Goco.com, good for any of their products: Home freeze dryers, pressure canners, Country Living grain mills, Emergency Essentials foods, and much more.
4. Two 1,000-foot spools of full mil-spec U.S.-made 750 paracord (in-stock colors only) from www.TOUGHGRID.com (a $240 value).
5. Two Super Survival Pack seed collections, a $150 value, courtesy of Seed for Security, LLC,
6. A transferable $150 FRN purchase credit from Elk Creek Company, toward the purchase of any pre-1899 antique gun. There is no paperwork required for delivery of pre-1899 guns into most states, making them the last bastion of firearms purchasing privacy!

Third Prize:

1. EBL is providing an EBL Voyager 500-Watt Power Station with deep cycle lithium batteries, providing reliable 120 Volt AC and DC (12 Volt and USB) power for emergencies or outdoor use. (A $399 value.)
2. Three sets each of made-in-USA regular and wide-mouth reusable canning lids. (This is a total of 300 lids and 600 gaskets.) This prize is courtesy of Harvest Guard (a $270 value)
3. A Royal Berkey water filter, courtesy of Directive 21 (a $275 value),
4. Montana Survival Seed is providing a $225 gift code for any items on its website, including organic non-GMO seeds, fossils, 1812-1964 US silver, jewelry, botany books, and Montana beeswax.
5. A transferable $150 FRN purchase credit from Elk Creek Company, toward the purchase of any pre-1899 antique gun.

—

More than $800,000 worth of prizes have been awarded since we started running this contest….

Jake Wiener, Counsel in EPIC’s Project on Surveillance Oversight, testified today and submitted written testimony before the New York City Council’s Committees on Technology and Civil and Human Rights. The Committees are considering two bills: Int 1014-2023 banning face surveillance in places of public accommodation and Int 1024-2023 banning face surveillance by landlords.

Mr. Wiener urged the Council to pass both bills with amendments to avoid loopholes that could impact employees and independent workers. He also pointed out the need for a private right of action in Bill 1014-2023. In his testimony, Mr. Wiener described how facial recognition can “destroy our privacy and effectively close off traditionally public spaces.” He asked the Council to consider how biometric monitoring can enable unavoidable surveillance including location tracking, and noted that facial recognition has not been shown to reduce crime.

EPIC Senior Counsel Jeramie Scott previously testified before the Council in February, urging the Council to draft bills banning facial recognition in places of public accommodation. The hearings comes after facial recognition was used to deny entry into Radio City Music Hall to a mother chaperoning her daughter’s Girl Scout troop because she works for a law firm that has litigation against MSG Entertainment Corp., the owner of the venue. A video recording of the hearing is available on the NY City Council website. 

Introduction: Purpose Limitations & Primary and Secondary Purposes Under an FTC Unfairness Rule

This is the second in a series of blog posts about EPIC’s proposal for a data minimization standard to limit commercial surveillance and protect consumer privacy. As explained in our previous post, data minimization is the standard for limiting the collection, use, transfer, and retention of personal information to that which is reasonably necessary. Our first blog post in this series discussed the reasonable consumer expectation framework for data minimization. This post explains why the Federal Trade Commission should promulgate a rule that prohibits secondary out-of-context data uses with limited exceptions and why it is important to limit the uses of personal information to certain narrow purposes.

The FTC’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) regarding commercial surveillance and data security provides the FTC an opportunity to rein in these harmful out-of-context uses. In promulgating a privacy rule, the Commission should be guided by the core principles that have been the foundation of consumer privacy protections for decades, the Fair Information Practices, which include: (1) Collection Limitation; (2) Data Quality; (3) Purpose Specification; (4) Use Limitation; (5) Security Safeguards; (6) Openness; (7) Individual Participation; and (8) Accountability. In order to put these privacy principles into action, the FTC will need to use its unfairness authority to restrain business practices that cause substantial harm to consumers, that are not reasonably avoidable, and that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.  

As EPIC explained in our comments on the FTC rulemaking, out-of-context secondary uses cause substantial harm to consumers and should be curtailed. In order to determine the scope of data uses that cause substantial harm to consumers, the Commission will need to evaluate which data uses primarily serve the interests of consumers as they interact directly with businesses in the online ecosystem. To the extent that the Commission determines that certain limited secondary uses either serve the interests of consumers or have substantial countervailing benefits, it should allow data uses for those narrow secondary permissible purposes. A privacy rule that imposes a data minimization standard in this way will not only be consistent with the FIPs but will also fit clearly within the scope of Commission’s unfairness authority.

Secondary Uses Cause Substantial Harm

Consumers are constantly tracked online while using the internet and their devices which subjects consumers to far-reaching data collection. As explained in our previous blog post, data processing is often “not directly in service of fulfilling a consumer’s request,” including out-of-context secondary uses of data that regularly exceed the scope of reasonable consumer expectations. Not only is this data collection and use harmful in itself, but it also necessarily subjects consumers to downstream security risks and privacy harms. The unfair, systemic overcollection and misuse of personal data leads to “invasive, discriminatory targeting that violates the privacy and autonomy of consumers.”

In the course of our daily lives, our personal information is automatically collected, processed, and transferred, some of which is…

The Federal Trade Commission today announced its intent to impose dramatic new limits on the personal data practices of Meta (previously Facebook), including a ban on monetizing the data of children and restrictions on the company’s use of facial recognition technology.

The proposed action, which would modify an existing FTC order against Meta resulting from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, is based on findings that Meta “failed to fully comply with the order, misled parents about their ability to control with whom their children communicated through its Messenger Kids app, and misrepresented the access it provided some app developers to private user data.”

If finalized, the revised order would limit Meta’s use of minors’ personal data solely to providing its service and security purposes; prohibit Meta from releasing new products or features “until it can demonstrate . . . that its privacy program fully complies with the Order and has no material gaps or weaknesses”; extend restrictions on Meta’s use of facial recognition technology; and impose additional privacy and security safeguards.

“We have seen time and again that Meta and other Big Tech companies have broken their privacy promises and failed to meet their obligations to users, including children who are especially at risk of manipulation and abuse,” said EPIC Executive Director Alan Butler. “It is essential that the Federal Trade Commission vigorously enforce its orders and hold these companies to account when they fail to protect the privacy of their users. And we know that even incredibly large fines are not enough to stop data abuses where there are profits to be made. Meta has had over a decade to clean up its act, but even after a $5 billion fine, it continues to violate its users’ privacy.That is why it is necessary for the Commission to be proactive and ensure that these abusive business practices are stopped.”

EPIC has long fought to protect the privacy of social media users, particularly users of Facebook and Meta. In 2009, EPIC and coalition partners brought an FTC complaint concerning Facebook’s privacy settings that led to the Commission’s first consent decree with Facebook. EPIC filed numerous FTC complaints targeting Facebook’s abusive data practices in the years after and challenged the inadequacy of the Commission’s 2019 consent decree in federal court.

On Friday, EPIC lead a coalition including Reset Tech, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, and former government officials in filing an amicus brief defending California’s new Age-Appropriate Design Code against a challenge from tech giant advocacy group NetChoice.

The California Age-Appropriate Design Code is a landmark new law that requires tech companies to design their services with children’s privacy in mind. Starting in July 2024, tech companies will be required to assess how their services collect and use children’s data and to refrain from certain harmful uses of that data. NetChoice, whose members include Google, Meta, Amazon, Twitter, and TikTok, is trying to block the law’s implementation. NetChoice argues that the law restricts what content a company can show on its website and, consequently, the law violates the First Amendment and is inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents tech companies from being treated as the publishers of third-party content.

The coalition of groups lead by EPIC argued that California’s Design Code “does not require companies to remove or even demote any specific content—as long as they do not use children’s data in a way that violates the law, companies can show users whatever information they like.” The coalition pointed out that courts have “increasing rejected” tech companies’ attempts to use Section 230 to immunize themselves from their own harmful conduct, such as when they use personal information about users to deny them access to information in violation of anti-discrimination laws or when the design of an app feature causes foreseeable harm. Since California’s new law regulates similar platform conduct, Section 230 does not apply. The coalition also argued that “the impact assessments required by the AADC are common in regulatory frameworks across the United States and the world.” The coalition wrote that NetChoice’s and its supporters’ “argument that generally applicable privacy regulations, targeted specifically at mitigating harms to children’s privacy, are unconstitutional would undermine numerous federal and state laws and undermine the state’s compelling interest in protecting the privacy of children.”

EPIC regularly files amicus briefs defending the constitutionality and enforceability of privacy statutes.