According to the Associated Press, a Virginia-based company is giving law enforcement agencies across the U.S. access to cellphone tracking technology capable of mapping people's movements months back in time.
Eshoo called on the chair of the commission to investigate the company to make sure that it becomes a prohibited business practice.
The company's product was described as an "obscure cellphone tracking tool" by the Associated Press. The software works on location data culled from hundreds of consumer apps.
Fog Data Science buys this data, which can be used to track the movements of an individual mobile device over a period of months, and repackages it in a platform used by at least two dozen agencies. The company hasn't revealed how many police contracts it has.
Bennett Cyphers, a special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, described the software as a mass-surveillance program on a budget. According to records, the software can be had for as little as $7500 a year.
A Fourth Amendment "loophole" has been called by some constitutional experts. Many government agencies have chosen to interpret the Supreme Court ruling on location data narrowly because it only applies to demands for such data. Because the Fourth Amendment does not regulate commercial transactions, and no court has yet ruled on whether the opinion applies to the government's ability to simply purchase the same data instead, a host of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have begunliterally buying their way around the need to obtain
In a post-Roe v. Wade world, it's more important than ever to be aware of how tools like FogReveal may present new threats as states pass increasingly drastic bills limiting people's access to abortion services and targeting people seeking reproductive healthcare
“The use of Fog Reveal is also seemingly incompatible with protections against unlawful search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.”She said that the use of Fog reveal is incompatible with Fourth amendment protections. Consumers don't realize that their Fourth Amendment rights are at risk when they download and use free apps on their phone. It would be difficult for consumers to consent to this if they were given the option.
Fog Data Science isn't reachable for comment. Matthew Broderick, one of the company's managing partners, told the Associated Press that search warrants are not required for the use of public data.
Broderick said that he was confident that law enforcement would use the product in accordance with the laws in their respective jurisdiction.
There are no laws governing the use of commercial surveillance technology in most of the states. Only in a few places, such as Oakland and San Diego, do city leaders have to consider the benefits of the technology before it's deployed.
There have been reports of misuse of police databases. Hundreds of documented cases in which officers had been fired, suspended, or forced to resign after accessing confidential databases to gather information on "romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work" were unearthed by the Associated Press.
The FTC acknowledged receipt of Eshoo's letter, but did not elaborate.
The agency began a rulemaking process last month to address the issue of commercial and data security. The issue is broadly defined by the notice for this process. It's not clear how the agency will act on its findings or whether it believes new rules are necessary. While the notice references accounts of location data being purchased by the government, it doesn't mention law enforcement partnerships.
The former director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau has joined others in questioning if the rulemaking is a serious effort or just an attempt to push Congress to pass a comprehensive privacy bill.
The restrictions against the collection or sale of data under that bill do not apply to any company that works for the government. The American Data Privacy and Prevention Act would not stop police from using the Fog reveal software.
The first major privacy bill to be passed out of committee on Capitol Hill in 20 years is the Automatic Data Privacy Act, which would ban the sale of location data. As we approach the election of a new House of Representatives in November, the clock on theADPPA is quickly running out.
Three years ago, the New York Times reported that the US was the only developed nation without a comprehensive consumer data protection law.
There has been no change. Democrats and Republicans disagree on what a national privacy law should do. The issues remaining embody clashing visions of how a federal law should work, despite years of backroom negotiation. The government should give victims of privacy crimes the power to go to the courts. Is it better for them to rely on the government to get justice for them? Is it really that important?
In addition to a private right of action, there is a debate over whether federal law should be a floor on which states can create new privacy rights, versus a ceiling, which would prevent them from doing so.
Regardless, neither side appears to be interested in tackling the problem at hand, that law enforcement officers around the country are being given the power to track the movements of ordinary Americans using tools that can fit on a cellphone.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
