Monthly Archives: June 2022

The FBI searches through databases of foreign communications in a program that Congress created specifically to catch foreign terrorists and spies. But the FBI uses this same program to glean private information about American citizens and our communications. These so-called U.S. person queries are transforming one of the most powerful and invasive surveillance authorities Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into a means for FBI agents to spy on Americans without a warrant, gutting the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Section 702 has become increasingly controversial since its passage in 2008. Congress passed it only to authorize the surveillance of non-Americans outside the United States. It was promoted as an authority designed to counter terrorists. Instead, it is being used in Orwellian ways that make America a little more like Russia or China.

Through declassified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions and other government disclosures, the public has learned that Americans personal information is also swept up by what intelligence agencies call incidental collection. After our information ends up in government databases, the FBI intentionally searches it to learn more about Americans, our communications, and what were up to. This means the FBI can warrantlessly obtain, review and use the private communications of Americans who are not suspected of criminal activity or any wrongdoing.

One could be forgiven for assuming that the FBI would violate the Fourth Amendment in such a way in only the most extreme cases. This is not the case. As early as 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board disclosed that FBI agents searched through this database as a matter of routine practice.

A declassified FISC opinion from 2020 reveals that FBI agents have used 702 information to snoop on individuals who asked to participate in the FBIs Citizens Academies a program for business, religious, civic and community leaders to better appreciate the role of federal law enforcement in the community. (Yes, that joke writes itself.) Section 702 also was used without warrants to search the personal information of repair workers entering field offices, people providing tips, and victims reporting crimes.

The same FISC opinion describes the FBIs systematic failure to obtain court orders before reviewing the contents of Americans communications. Congress established this requirement in 2018 after an outpouring of public concern that Section 702 information might be used wrongfully in criminal contexts. The cases in which the FBI failed to abide by Congresss express requirement to get a court order before accessing the contents of communications included suspected health care fraud, hardly the stuff of national security. These and similar violations were discovered during oversight reviews of seven out of 56 FBI field offices.

A recent report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is cause for grave concern. From December 2019 through November 2020, the FBI conducted U.S. person queries up to 1,324,057 times. The government reports this as a maximum figure because of continued weaknesses in the FBIs ability to track their own agents use of this information. From December 2020 through November 2021, the FBI nearly tripled its U.S. person queries, conducting up to 3,394,053 searches.

The governments explanations for these astounding numbers create more concerns than they answer. The ODNI cites, for example, almost 2 million FBI queries relating to Russian cyberattacks against Americans. Accepting this explanation at face value, Congress and the public are left to ask: Why did the FBI conduct the other million or so U.S. person queries, and for what reason? How many innocent Americans emails did the FBI read in its millions of searches? Will the increasing frequency of cybersecurity incidents mean the FBIs U.S. person queries will triple again?

As former chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I have seen firsthand the tendency of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use surveillance laws to sweep up more information for more purposes especially when there isnt adequate transparency.

It would be nave to expect transparency around U.S. person queries to stop improper surveillance. But transparency would give Congress and the public insights to better understand the impact of foreign intelligence surveillance on Americans privacy. Thus, Congress should require the FBI to continue reporting on an annual basis how many times it knowingly searches for information about Americans and their communications.

It is in the enlightened interest of the FBI to cooperate on transparency. Another surveillance authority, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act which allowed for the collection of personal information from business transactions was so routinely abused that Congress allowed it to expire in 2020. Section 702 yields insights essential to national security. But dont be surprised next year, when Section 702 is up for reauthorization, if some in Congress argue that it should expire if the FBI continues to stonewall and run roughshod over the Fourth Amendment.

Bob Goodlatte represented Virginias 6th District in Congress from 1993 to 2019 and chaired the House Judiciary Committee. He is a senior policy adviser to the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability.

See the original post here:
How the FBI uses laws to spy on foreign terrorists to spy on you - The Hill

Re Portsmouth church to give away $20K worth of gas Saturday (March 30): As an adult college student who works 40 hours a week, I was pleasantly surprised about the gas funds. Since January, gas, rent, property taxes and food prices have risen tremendously. I remember when I first started to drive in 2010. Gas prices were $2.77 a gallon.

To have the Grove Church volunteer to help the struggling community is amazing. I hope other churches or businesses see this and are inspired to do the same. This idea would lighten the burden from peoples wallets and pocketbooks.

Maria Godfrey, Chesapeake

Re Pedestrian deaths reach record highs in Norfolk despite citys initiative to reduce fatalities (June 2): A week or so ago, I was proceeding down a city street and came to a spot with cars parked on both sides of the street, another car approaching, and a pedestrian walking in the street, around the parked car on my side of the street. There really wasnt enough room for both parked cars, both traveling vehicles and also the pedestrian. I honked my horn at the pedestrian, and he glared at me as if I was the one at fault.

There is a city ordnance against impeding traffic by walking in the street when there is a sidewalk available. However, I see pedestrians walking in the street every day, ignoring the sidewalks. My only conclusion is that they are candidates for a Darwin Award.

Weekly

The week's top opinion content and an opportunity to participate in a weekly question on a topic that affects our region.

William Melgaard, Hampton

President Joe Biden pledged more than a month ago, and I quote, to work like the devil to bring gas prices down to ease the hardship on the working and blue collar residents of our country. For after all the Democratic Party is the party of the working class, the blue collar workers who are the very backbone of our economy and country, but alas circumstances beyond his control have prevented the keeping of promises made.

Who could have predicted the Ukrainians successful and fierce defense of their country against the Russian invasion or the reluctance of the foreign oil-producing countries to flood the market with their oil to lower the price of crude oil as requested by our president? All of these reasons for the current administrations lack of fulfillment of its promise to deliver lower gas prices to the American public would be mute if Biden would work smarter, not harder by allowing oil companies to easily drill for oil on publicly owned land and to begin work again on the Keystone XL pipeline extension. I think you will find the most effective solutions to the oil supply problem are here within our countrys boundaries. Oil independence is the key to a prosperous and secure America.

L.P. Howell, Yorktown

Re Regulate ammo (Your Views, June 6): Walter Coopers letter seems to have hit upon a novel solution to the problem of violence in America: ignore the Constitution. OK, lets see how that works. There are 27 amendments. Which other one would you like to ignore? How about the First Amendment, as another writer on the same page, Social media, seemed to suggest needed tweaking to be read, suppressed. There would be no more letters to the editor; no newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, etc., except those allowed by government; no more expressing ones opinion in public; no more criticism of government; etc.

Cooper cites government regulation of tobacco and alcohol as examples of successful restraints on society. Funny, I cant find any constitutional right to those products. Maybe my copy of that document is a misprint. How secure in your home (Fourth Amendment) would you be if government were allowed to ignore the Constitution? If it can ignore the Second Amendment, it can ignore the other 26. Government has a veracious appetite. Be careful what you wish for. Semper Fi.

Jim Lewallen, Chesapeake

See the original post here:
Letters for June 11: Let's hope others copy Grove Church and its $20K gas giveaway - The Virginian-Pilot

The US Supreme Court is poised to consider a question with seismic consequences for online speech. Over the past year, laws in Texas and Florida have set up a legal battle over whether the First Amendment protects social networks right to curate user-generated content or whether these sites should be treated more like phone companies, required to host nearly any speech their users post. The courts split reflects a deepening shift in how to interpret a basic constitutional right, filtered through a political culture war and backlash against large web platforms.

For years, sites like Facebook and YouTube have broadly assumed that moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment. But, last month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a surprise ruling over Texas HB 20, a law that bans large apps and websites from moderating content based on viewpoint. The court ruled against NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and let the law go into effect, sending the groups scrambling to file an emergency Supreme Court petition. That petition was granted temporarily blocking the law but also offering a preview of a seemingly inevitable Supreme Court battle.

I would be surprised if the court doesnt take this up, says Ari Cohn, counsel at the libertarian-leaning nonprofit TechFreedom one of roughly 30 groups that supported the petition. The Fifth Circuit still hasnt decided on the laws merits, but it seems highly sympathetic to Texas reasoning. And that reasoning conflicts directly with a May ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocked Floridas similar law. Barring a sudden and massive shift, its almost inevitable this is going to create a circuit split and go up next term, says Cohn.

The central issue is whether the government can regulate how social networks sort and remove legal content. Opponents argue that curating posts and setting community standards involves private companies exercising a constitutional right to speak (or not speak, in the case of content bans). Supporters compare the sites to shopping malls or telephone networks, whose First Amendment rights are limited.

But both sides so far are leaning on old cases involving non-digital spaces and tech, and the Texas law in particular repurposes legal terms outside of even relatively recent judicial context. It designates social networks as utility-like common carriers, a label that federal rules explicitly avoid applying to internet service providers let alone websites. And it also bans viewpoint discrimination, a term the Supreme Court has used to describe unlawful government restrictions on speech but that Texas lawmakers have treated as synonymous with private companies moderating conservative content.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Texas could make that legal repurposing stick, and its implications would go far beyond Facebook banning former President Donald Trump. Democratic politicians have discussed punishing the spread of health misinformation or other harmful but legal speech. And, depending on how its written, the ruling wont necessarily just apply to the biggest social media companies. Even Texas law, which applies to services with 50 million monthly active users, would likely scoop up non-Big Tech sites like Yelp or Tumblr.

Texas and Florida politicians have also taken the unusual step of describing their bills as conservative weapons against the alleged liberal bias of tech companies. To Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at media advocacy group Free Press, that makes them a risky place even for good-faith debate over the First Amendment and makes any Supreme Court decision particularly fraught. This is not a great opportunity to talk about free speech, because this is not the way to appropriately regulate the First Amendment. There are ways that that can be done, Benavidez says. A states partisan interest in protecting certain speech is not one of those avenues.

Benavidez acknowledges real concerns around large social networks, which have tremendous power to shape speech online in some cases literally changing the way a generation talks. But a ruling that their community standards arent protected speech, she argues, would have catastrophic consequences. People who are supportive of HB 20 imagine that the law will help protect speech, she says. In reality, governments dictating what private actors can and cant do, and essentially picking and choosing speech that is acceptable, is a precursor in every country around the world to totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and the demise of democratic engagement.

For a hugely consequential law, however, HB 20 has moved between courts with a marked lack of explanation. The Fifth Circuit declined to offer a rationale for its decision, and the case flowed through the Supreme Courts shadow docket emergency petition system something NetChoice and the CCIA called a necessity after the Fifth Circuits abrupt decision but that resulted in only a short dissent from Justice Samuel Alito and no majority opinion.

This case has been anything but normal, says Cohn. There has definitely been a dearth of information from the majorities at every level except the district court level.

Thats left court watchers speculating about what last weeks 54 vote means. Its really hard to make predictions on the basis of the decision we have so far, because the majority didnt issue an opinion, says Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Alitos dissent, which was co-signed by the Republican-appointed justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, emphasized that he hadnt reached a conclusion on the law. Former President Barack Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan voted against the decision without signing a move several experts suggested might be a protest against the controversial shadow docket itself but also said was still open to interpretation.

Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger, who filed one of the two legal briefs supporting HB 20, believes that this early vote simply doesnt say much about the laws prospects. Justice Alito hinted that the Supreme Court vacated the stay simply because the case is so important, he tells The Verge. It did not resolve the constitutional question.

CCIA president Matt Schruers contends that theres little ambiguity. I think we have five members of the federal judiciary who have made unmistakably clear their views, and theyre all aligned that a Fairness Doctrine for the internet is not constitutional. He also disagreed with the idea that courts havent spoken clearly on the law. We have gone three for three in federal court, he said referring to district court opinions in Texas and Florida plus the appeals court decision in Florida, all of which have largely rejected the states reasoning.

Other critics of the law arent as optimistic. I dont agree with every First Amendment argument the platforms are making, but the central argument they make that they have a right and their users have a right for the platforms to enforce community norms of their choosing is an incredibly important right for free speech online. And the three justices in the dissent seem ready to reject that argument, says Abdo. Justice Thomas in particular is a well-known proponent of some novel legal theories about internet law, and he seems likely to favor arguments for regulating social media.

Beyond the pressing question of whether sites can be required to carry certain content, the court could address more nuanced questions about what the First Amendment might protect. As Will Oremus of The Washington Post discusses, the Eleventh Circuit let parts of Floridas law stand, saying that limited regulation like transparency requirements doesnt necessarily violate speech rights. The Knight Institute in particular has praised that nuance, saying it properly rejects the platforms argument that the First Amendment insulates them from all regulation.

The recent court decisions are part of a political and cultural landscape where the First Amendments interpretation may be increasingly up for grabs. In a recent University of Chicago Law Review Online analysis, law professors Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier noted that First Amendment politics are more complicated, uncertain, and, well, just plain weird than they have been in a long time partly because of things like the Fifth Circuits surprising decision and partly because of larger cultural and technological shifts.

Abdo compares the brewing Supreme Court showdown over speech to the past decades fights over digital privacy and surveillance culminating in decisions that set a promising precedent for a new era. Over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has been called on to answer the question of how the Fourth Amendment applies in the digital age. What are our privacy rights in the digital age? Do Supreme Court precedents from the 1960s and 70s and 80s decide the question of state power to surveil in the 2000s? he says. The Supreme Court said emphatically, no technology has changed. The governments ability to surveil has changed. Peoples expectations of privacy have changed. And we have to answer these questions.

In a best-case scenario, Abdo believes that could happen here. I think we may be witnessing something similar in the First Amendment context that courts will have to analyze anew how the First Amendment ought to apply to new technologies, he says. And what I hope they will keep as their guiding point is whether their interpretation of the First Amendment ultimately serves the values that free speech is meant to serve.

View original post here:
A Supreme Court speech showdown is coming, and nobody knows what to expect - The Verge

Photo: Getty (Getty Images)

The Supreme Court has long been lauded as the pinnacle workplace of the legal profession. Its employees enjoy a collegial-meets-combative atmosphere wherein clerks and justices are free from the prying eyes of the public. Its employees regularly go onto plum private practice gigs with fat bonuses commensurate to their time spent denying rights to the plebs.

Not anymore!

My god, since the leak of the abortion opinion draft in early May, the reported inner workings are turning the Court into a horrible screenplay about a naughty tech startup, and I cant look away from the chaos. I dont know how on earth the Court is going to finish up its work this term, one source close to the justices told NPR. Another source, who described the current atmosphere inside the marble palace said, the place sounds like its imploding.

But thats just an anonymous source. Can it really be that bad? Yes, it can. Even Justice Clarence Thomasa man best known for not speaking and then pretty much pushing his own wacko beliefs into precedentwants the public to understand the Court is in crisis. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that Im in, it changes the institution fundamentally, Thomas said in a conversation with torture memos author John Yoo. You begin to look over your shoulder. Its like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you cant undo it.

That infidelity, though, was never a crime. Leaking an opinion isnt illegal, as opinion drafts are not classified documents; the Court simply keeps them secret.

This hasnt stopped Court security (whose main duties are keeping justices safe, not investigating) from taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits attesting that they are not the source of the leak, CNN reported. Its led to clerks exploring whether or not they need to hire outside counsel. Leaking the document isnt illegal, but signing a false affidavit is a crime. Plus, clerks are trying to balance their desire for legal representation with the possibility that not cooperating could fuck up their future legal careers. Remember those plum partnerships and professorships?

Imagine worrying if your boss or your bosss equally powerful colleague suspects you are guilty because you want a lawyer to advise you on your Fourth Amendment right to not turn over your phone. A right against unreasonable search and seizure, by the way, that was decided by your bosss boss, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Honestly, this place sounds like an absolute nightmare full of stressed, type-A overachievers working under people who are enraged about the fact that they cant just take away rights from everyone in peace.

As NPR reported:

The clerks, he explained, are sort of the courts diplomatic corps. Especially at this time of year, they talk to each other, with the approval of their bosses, to find out how far the envelope can be pushed in this case or that one or conversely, how can we soften language to get five justices on board. But at the moment, he noted, the clerks are terrified that their whole professional lives could be blown up, so they arent able to do that.

Oh no, what if this atmosphere keeps the justices from releasing opinions? What will we do then? Continue having a tenuous legal grip on abortion rights in America? Dang. Oh well! Its much more important that the Supreme Court start working on its internal workings. After all, you never know when court expansion might become more politically tolerable. Maybe this is the time to unionize the Supreme Court clerks.

I, for one, personally love the gossip! It keeps me from curling into the fetal position every time a new opinion release day is announced. And if anybody wants to gossip about it....my secure email is caitlinrcruz@protonmail.com.

Read more:
The Supreme Court Is Reportedly 'Imploding.' Just in Time! - Jezebel

WTVD, ZOOM, BROWN FAMILY, CNN

By Jamiel Lynch and Devon M. Sayers, CNN

The estate of Andrew Brown, Jr. has settled its lawsuit against a North Carolina county sheriffs office over his shooting death during an arrest last year, according to an attorney for the estate.

Browns family settled with Pasquotank County for $3 million, according to attorney Bakari Sellers, who represents the family and is also a CNN political analyst.

Brown, a 42-year-old Black man, was killed April 21, 2021, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, by Pasquotank County deputies attempting to serve a warrant for his arrest. His death resulted in protests against the shooting as critics accused police of a lack of transparency.

Browns family is satisfied with the settlement, according to attorneys representing his estate in the case.

This case was not about finance but about family, attorney Harry Daniels said at a news conference.

This settlement will do exactly what we intended to do and take care of Andrew Brown Jrs children for years to come. Theres no amount of money that can recover or take place the loss that the family is experiencing and will continue to experience for years to come, he said.

Brown has seven children, including five minors, according to the attorneys.

Due to the pending federal investigation into the case, Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten answered few questions regarding the case at the news conference, but said changes have been made in the county in light of the circumstances of Browns fatal shooting by deputies.

Changes include advanced training for deputies and the development of a citizens advisory council.

Wooten said the advisory council will look like the community we serve.

We train every day. Its no secret to nobody in todays society, law enforcement was not what it was 20 years ago, he said.

We have had more advance training to capitalize on de-escalation techniques, Wooten added.

Pasquotank County District Attorney Andrew Womble later concluded the shooting which Browns family described as an execution was justified, saying Brown recklessly drove at the officers on the scene while trying to flee arrest.

Much of the attempted arrest was captured on body cameras worn by some of the deputies involved, however North Carolina law restricted its release without a court order. In a news conference nearly a month after Browns death, Womble showed videos captured by deputies.

Three of the seven deputies on scene fired a total of 14 shots at Brown, according to Womble. A state autopsy later confirmed Brown died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head.

While the district attorney concluded that no criminal law was violated, this was a terrible and tragic outcome, and we could do better, Wooten said, adding two deputies did not turn on their body cameras during the incident.

The three deputies who fired at Brown would be reinstated and retrained, Wooten said at the time. One of them has since retired and the other two were back on the force.

Browns family and their attorneys said the same body-camera and dash-camera videos show Brown was trying to drive away from officers and was not a threat.

Attorneys for Browns estate filed a $30 million civil rights lawsuit in July, claiming deputies violated Browns Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.

An amended complaint further alleged the arrest warrant for Brown was unlawful because it was not signed by a judge. The suit also said the two ranking officers initially on the scene when Brown was confronted told investigators they did not fire their weapons because they did not see any indication Brown had a weapon. One of them told investigators he did not think Browns car was going to hit him, the lawsuit said.

The FBI has announced a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting.

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Follow this link:
Estate of Andrew Brown Jr., who was fatally shot by North Carolina deputies last year, reaches $3 million settlement with county - kuna noticias y...

Harrison Epstein, Daily Herald

Utah County Attorney candidate Jeff Gray has a long list of changes he plans on making if hes elected over incumbent David Leavitt.

Gray has been a prosecutor for 31 years, and running for county attorney was never in his plans until now.

Certainly, what I saw in Leavitts policies prompted me to run, Gray said.

Grays first act would be to reinstate the special victims unit that Leavitt disbanded.

That is a team of prosecutors who are specially trained to prosecute against crimes against women and children, and his approach to it is a disaster, said Gray. Leavitt will say he split up the unit and they trained everyone else, so now everyone is adept in prosecuting these kinds of crimes, but it isnt true. Ive spoken to several prosecutor and they arent getting that training.

Gray also told the Daily Herald he chose to run because he believes the county attorneys office needs to have a better working relationship with law enforcement.

All Ive heard from the county attorney is criticisms for police, but he hasnt done anything to help train police so they know what they can and cant do, Gray claimed.

Gray has been the Search and Seizure Director for the Utah Attorney Generals office for almost ten years. He said he would bring the necessary training to law enforcement officers within the county, if elected.

I regularly train law enforcement officers on the Constitution, specifically on the fourth amendment, on what they can and cant do, he said. I will bring that to this office and provide that training. We are on the same team, so we better be on the same page, and currently we arent on the same page.

Along with law enforcement, Gray sees a need for more training for prosecutors as well.

If I have to shift resources so that we have both victim advocates and training, I will do that, he said. I want this office to be the best prosecutors office in the state. We need attorneys that are well-trained and abreast with the law.

While commending what he called fine prosecutors in the office, he remarked the team is youthful.

I believe they are hardworking, but they are very young, and I think thats going to be a challenge when I take office, Gray said.

He is also in favor of pursuing the death penalty, and said it is the county attorneys duty to pursue it when appropriate to do so. Leavitt announced in September 2021 that he would no longer pursue the death penalty in capital cases.

As the chief prosecutor of the county, when the people of the state see fit to have the death penalty, its his obligation as the attorney who took an oath to pursue the law to pursue it, he said. When he says he will never pursue the death penalty, he is in violation of that oath. I will pursue the death penalty in appropriate cases.

According to Gray, the county currently has three crime victim advocates. He believes more are needed and would like to double that number, at least.

Gray also wants to incorporate an idea from his new ally, Adam Pomeroy, who wanted to ensure there are more fluent Spanish-speaking advocates.

We have a large percentage of our community that is Spanish speaking, so we need to be able to be attendant to their needs as well, he said.

After talking to thousands of people during this campaign, Gray believes his goals align with what the public wants.

Our experience is that they have overwhelmingly agreed with these things, he said. The residents support police. They realize the difficult jobs they have. Sheriff Smith, I think is very well liked. They universally believe we need a special victims unit. The death penalty is little bit more of a controversial issue, but by and large folks we have talked to support it.

Ballots have been mailed for the Republican primary. The election will culminate on June 28 between Gray and Leavitt.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Here is the original post:
Gray seeks to undo Leavitt's actions if elected as Utah County Attorney - Daily Herald

Most modern cars know their locations better than their owners do. As suites of connected-car apps become mainstream for both emergency functionality (such as General Motors' OnStar) or for owner conveniences such as remote start or parking guidance, new vehicles are overflowing with data needed to support always-on connectivity.

While most owner concerns (and popular attention) have been fixed on unallowed hacks into such systems by bad actors, there are still massive troves of automatically generated data open to anyone with the knowledge to access it, and even the "proper" use of this data can be a risk to consumers who seek privacy. Your home, your work, every trip you've taken no matter how private: it all can be seen by companies, countries, and individuals you've never given permission to follow your travels, and completely legally.

Struggling to think of a need for privacy besides what's already been extensively reported and debated? One recent example: As certain states attempt to make previously legal medical care (such as abortion, contraception, and basic trans-related medication and care) illegal to access, the modern connected car and its troves of data have the potential to become a governments unintentional best friend and a driver's worst enemy as prosecution intensifies. Even if you're not immediately affected by your car tracking your habits, state law has been changing increasingly rapidlyfamilies in Texas found their access to trans care restricted within a week of the governor's directive to eliminate itand you may find yourself criminalized a week from now unexpectedly over some other arbitrary decision.

The good news is there's already proposed legislation to combat the current freewheeling fate of our privacy. The bad news is we don't know how long that legislation will take to pass, if it does at all.

To understand how driving a car could incriminate someone, its worth examining just what kind of data the car itself collects and transmits.

In 2021, 90 percent of cars sold in the United Statesand around 130 million total cars sold worldwidecontained some form of embedded connectivity. This built-in connectivity can take many forms (built-in Wi-Fi connectivity, infotainment systems that connect to cellular networks, and even Bluetooth systems) but all of them share a few things in common: They collect (and transmit) massive amounts of data, they are usually truly embedded in the physical car (and comprise some core functionality of it), and owners rarely have control of where it ends up. This trove of data is known as telematics, and its a multi-billion-dollar industry with wide-reaching implications for consumers.

Most consumers never have an inkling of just how powerfuland plentifulthis telemetry data is. The raw amount of information itself is overwhelming to consider; a case study by the Washington Post on a 2018 Chevrolet Volt showed that the car generated up to 25 gigabytes per hour of data across every category imaginable; for context, browsing Instagram for an hour uses a mere 720 megabytes. This deluge of data the Volt created included location specifics, even when the GPS was not being actively used by the driver. In the case of the Chevy that was studied, researchers even bought a used Volt navigation system on eBay and were able to construct the previous owners daily life and routine down to their home, workplace, and oft-frequented gas station, simply by poring through stored location data that the infotainment system automatically logged.

An earlier study from 2017, undertaken by a student at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, pulled similar location data from a variety of late-model vehicles infotainment systems that logged exact coordinates even when the GPS was not engaged. In certain versions of Fords Sync infotainment system installed in mid-2010s-era Fords, the researcher found that vehicle and system generated events also generated GPS coordinates which can further be used to prove the vehicle users exact location at specific times (for e.g. when the vehicle shifts gear and vehicle doors are opened/closed, GPS coordinates are generated).

An example demonstration log in the study, pulled from a 2013 Ford F-150, shows GPS coordinates being stored when opening or closing a car door. With this frequency and precision, its easy to retrace exactly where that truck has been.

But it's not just the data inside your infotainment system that's a concern. All of the data discussed abovethe GPS coordinates of every gear change, the location of every ECU bootis not just stored onboard the car itself, but is frequently sent back to an automaker for storage and analysis.

This massive dataset has extremely advantageous, non-invasive uses for a host of businesses, including the automakers and drivers themselves. Telematics can help professional drivers spot and avoid traffic by analyzing previous patterns; urban planners can use similar data to identify roads prone to jams and create more efficient streets; insurance companies can use it to spot fraud or dangerous driving habits; and manufacturers or fleet owners can identify potential malfunctions to repair (if engines report misfires or check engine lights after driving at high altitudes, for example).

All of this is possible thanks to OEMs sharing these troves of telematics data with other companies, which then provide their own unique analyses. One example of a company like this is Otonomowhich, according to internal presentations shown to investors, is partnered with nearly a dozen automakers including Kia, BMW, Ford, Toyota, Stellantis, GM, and even heavy equipment manufacturer Bobcat. Otonomo offers an array of services all underpinned by its large collection of automobile data to a variety of consumers, which include tech behemoths Amazon and Microsoft, smart-city planners such as BeMobile, and parts manufacturers such as Hella and Continental.

Yet, with this billion-dollar business comes massive privacy implications. Even in massive data sets comprised of millions of different peoples' locations, all of whom are theoretically anonymous, identifying any one person out of those millions is a simple job without a strict concern for data privacy. In a 2019 feature story, The New York Times studied the difficulty of anonymizing location data as it relates to phones, and discovered individuals identities with ease in supposedly anonymous data sets containing timestamped locations of cell phones. Connected cars face the same issues that anonymization cell phones suffer from because the underlying premise of location tracking is that it is deeply difficult to anonymize, especially when the device in question travels with a person to their work and home.

How hard could it really be to anonymize this data? Well, a 2013 study published in Nature showed that four spatio-temporal [GPS locations with a timestamp] points are enough to uniquely identify 95 percent of the individuals," even while using a dataset of 1.5 million people. That is, even with millions of generic data points without a name attached to them, having four from a single person is enough to identify one of them. The only way the researchers found to add back any privacy to users that were anonymously tracked was to coarsen both location and timestamp data: making it less accurate by reducing the accuracy of location logging and giving wider time ranges for each timestamp. This, of course, reduces the usefulness of that data.

But companies have very little incentive to reduce the usefulness of location data because often its specificity is what makes it so valuable. McKinsey, a business strategy group, estimates the telematics data market will be worth a staggering $750 billion dollars by the time the decade is out. The best way to get a share of that lucrative market is with accurate data so that advertisers, police states, and corporations can get the most use from it.

Thats not to say some companies dont try to protect consumer privacy; Otonomo specifically employs what it calls data blurring," which ideally hides the privacy of drivers in compliance with European GDPR laws while still offering useful data for its customers. Otonomo acknowledged a request for comment from The Drive regarding how its data blurring works but was unable to provide technical details on what exact steps it takes for anonymity.

But there are no laws in the U.S. requiring that manufacturers anonymize any of the telematics they collect, and some third-party companies sell services explicitly offering to track specific, targeted vehicles. Not only can this be used by less-than-scrupulous buyers, but previous court precedent in the U.S. allows for federal agencies to buy location datasets to sift through personally identifiable data that would otherwise require a warrant.

With this in mind, The Drive reached out to four auto manufacturersFord, Honda, Kia, and BMWthat all offer modern connected-car functionality in many of their models, and whose privacy policies for use of their vehicles leave the possibility of third-party sale of telematics open. I asked, specifically, what their policies were on third-party data sale and sharing and, if they do share telematics with outside companies, how easily consumers can opt out of it at will.

Ford declined to comment. BMW acknowledged the request but did not provide any details on its data practices in time for publication.Honda referred to its privacy policy and owners manual disclosures for information regarding its telematics policies. In the policy, Honda noted that it can collect trip log information, including trip start time and end time, trip start and end location and that this information can be shared with third parties. The document also noted that this data is generated and transmitted automatically regardless of whether drivers use connected technologies such as HondaLink, although, in the past, the company has declined to track unsubscribed cars without a warrant.

Kia had a stronger approach to data protection. In a statement to The Drive, the company stated that Kia America collects geolocation data only on consumer-owned vehicles in the United States that are equipped with connected vehicle technology and have been enrolled by the owner in our Kia Connect service. Furthermore, the automaker noted,[Kia America] does not aggregate vehicle geolocation data, nor do we sell such data to third parties. While affiliated global Kia companies may have a working relationship with Otonomo, [Kia America] does not share vehicle data with that company. The company said that the only time that geolocation data is shared with law enforcement is when presented with a valid court order or warrant, or if an owner consents to share it during an active vehicle-theft investigation.

Separately, a Genesis representative assured us in another story that the biometric data the GV70 can collect for the SUV's fingerprint unlock and startup capabilities stays with the car itself and does not get shared with the company.

With this level of data on hand, few safeguards legislatively in place, and a very scattered set of privacy policies that can vary widely by manufacturer, the potential for a car to betray a persons privacy in a newly fraught legal landscape is clear. For example, there are already states that have not just banned care but also made it legally questionable to travel to another state for it, with Texass anti-abortion and anti-trans-care laws being the most obvious.

The states anti-abortion law weaponizes civil courts against anyone suspected of assisting in abortion (including, for example, driving someone out of state to a clinic where abortions are legal to obtain). Its anti-trans-care laws are somewhat differently formatted, but they allow state Child Protective Services to investigate any parents suspected of confirming their childs gender identity, which includes driving out-of-state to clinics where puberty blockers or trans-specific therapy are offered to minors. Idaho recently attempted to pass a similar bill punishing parents with up to life in prison for traveling out-of-state to get their children trans-related care; the bill died in the state Senate, but lawmakers indicated that they would be willing to pass a more narrowly targeted bill in the future.

With the troves of data offered by patients cars, however, theres a very clear risk, as what was once considered basic medical care becomes criminalized. Even assuming every other step for data privacy is takensuch as not traveling with a cell phone and avoiding digital communication while seeking carehaving a car automatically log that its doors were opened at an out-of-state Planned Parenthood could be enough to potentially be enough to warrant investigation, civil lawsuits, or even criminal proceedings. To make matters worse, data like this is already out there in the open on the public market, specifically targeting people who've been to clinics such as Planned Parenthood. Poland, for example, is strictly anti-abortion and recently created a registry to track every person who becomes pregnant and seeks any care. The location data for every pregnancy clinic a patient has visited would be a valuable addition to those lists.

Even more shockingly, accessing this data does not require a warrant. The techniques discussed above have already been put into practice by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, which has been deemed exempt from needing a warrant to search digital devices in general at the border. Thanks to a loophole in the Fourth Amendment (the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizures), state police can also download telematics data during routine police stops if they feel the need to, which means that a traffic stop could quickly become an examination of every place a driver has been for weeks.

However, this still relies on direct access to the car in question, which means that for such searches of telematics to be effective, state action would need to be targeted at specific, already-on-the-radar individuals such as activists and doctors (or used against already marginalized groups who are more frequently pulled over). But what if a police agency could just browse through everywhere cars have been, looking for interesting patterns, and tying back specific locations to individuals?

While Kias approach is much more likely to protect drivers privacy, the patchwork manufacturer-driven state of vehicle security means that while a Sorento may be able to glide under the radar, other vehicles may not. The easiest solution to unify the current state of driver privacy would likely come from the top downthat is, closing the Fourth Amendments loophole allowing vehicle telematics to be accessed without a warrant. While there is proposed bipartisan legislation that would do just that and prohibit warrantless vehicle surveillance by U.S. authorities, it hasnt been voted on since its introduction late last year.

In the meantime, I spoke with Mary Stone Ross, the chief privacy officer at the privacy-focused technology firm OSOM and a former employee of the CIA, for thoughts on how consumers could protect themselves. Unfortunately, despite her familiarity with the issue, there wasn't much comfort to be offered.

"I saw how powerful information was from a government perspective [at the CIA], where there actually was quite a bit of oversight and regulation. And then, what these companies had was so much more intrusive and they could do whatever they want," she explained. While she noted that she worked on California's data privacy law, the CCPA, in the pastwhich is currently the strongest privacy law in the nationshe also pointed out that most companies can still do what they want with personal data as long as any use of it has been disclosed in the fine print of a privacy policy.

Even then, it's still better than living elsewhere, as "all of the laws that you've seen passed by [other] states are so much weaker," Ross went on. "And then, there's been really no movement on the federal level... The tech companies are spending so much money, and any sort of privacy regulation they see as an existential threat to their business model, whether it is or isn't."

When I asked if there's anything consumers can do to protect themselves in the absence of strong federal law, she said, "I don't even know what my advice is [to consumers], because even with the rental cars, without safeguards on consumer data at the manufacturer level, its a free-for-all." Yet, in a world where privacy is likely to rapidly go from an afterthought to a central legal battle, her hope is still "that it actually puts pressure on Congress to pass federal privacy laws."

Until legislation is passed, then, consumers should be aware that their car could be an incredible weak point for their personal safety and privacy. If you can, perhaps stick with the ancient beaters, whose most advanced technology is fuel injection.

Got a tip? Send it to tips@thedrive.com

More here:
Your Car Is Tracking You Just as Much as Your Smartphone Isand Your Data Is at Risk - The Drive