I've Been Mugged Blog

Facebook’s Screening for Political Ads Nabs News Sites Instead of Politicians

[Editor's note: today's post, by reporters at ProPublica, discusses new advertising rules at the Facebook.com social networking service. It is reprinted with permission.]

By Jeremy B. Merrill and Ariana Tobin, ProPublica

One ad couldn’t have been more obviously political. Targeted to people aged 18 and older, it urged them to “vote YES” on June 5 on a ballot proposition to issue bonds for schools in a district near San Francisco. Yet it showed up in users’ news feeds without the “paid for by” disclaimer required for political ads under Facebook’s new policy designed to prevent a repeat of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nor does it appear, as it should, in Facebook’s new archive of political ads.

The other ad was from The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news outlet, promoting one of its articles about financial aid for college students. Yet Facebook’s screening system flagged it as political. For the ad to run, The Hechinger Report would have to undergo the multi-step authorization and authentication process of submitting Social Security numbers and identification that Facebook now requires for anyone running “electoral ads” or “issue ads.”

When The Hechinger Report appealed, Facebook acknowledged that its system should have allowed the ad to run. But Facebook then blocked another ad from The Hechinger Report, about an article headlined, “DACA students persevere, enrolling at, remaining in, and graduating from college.” This time, Facebook rejected The Hechinger Report’s appeal, maintaining that the text or imagery was political.

As these examples suggest, Facebook’s new screening policies to deter manipulation of political ads are creating their own problems. The company’s human reviewers and software algorithms are catching paid posts from legitimate news organizations that mention issues or candidates, while overlooking straightforwardly political posts from candidates and advocacy groups. Participants in ProPublica’s Facebook Political Ad Collector project have submitted 40 ads that should have carried disclaimers under the social network’s policy, but didn’t. Facebook may have underestimated the difficulty of distinguishing between political messages and political news coverage — and the consternation that failing to do so would stir among news organizations.

The rules require anyone running ads that mention candidates for public office, are about elections, or that discuss any of 20 “national issues of public importance” to verify their personal Facebook accounts and add a "paid for by" disclosure to their ads, which are to be preserved in a public archive for seven years. Advertisers who don’t comply will have their ads taken down until they undergo an "authorization" process, submitting a Social Security number, driver’s license photo, and home address, to which Facebook sends a letter with a code to confirm that anyone running ads about American political issues has an American home address. The complication is that the 20 hot-button issues — environment, guns, immigration, values foreign policy, civil rights and the like — are likely to pop up in posts from news organizations as well.

"This could be really confusing to consumers because it’s labeling news content as political ad content," said Stefanie Murray, director of the Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University.

The Hechinger Report joined trade organizations representing thousands of publishers earlier this month in protesting this policy, arguing that the filter lumps their stories in with the very organizations and issues they are covering, thus confusing readers already wary of "fake news." Some publishers — including larger outlets like New York Media, which owns New York Magazine — have stopped buying ads on political content they expect would be subject to Facebook’s ad archive disclosure requirement.

"When it comes to news, Facebook still doesn’t get it. In its efforts to clear up one bad mess, it seems set on joining those who want blur the line between reality-based journalism and propaganda," Mark Thompson, chief executive officer of The New York Times, said in prepared remarks at the Open Markets Institute on Tuesday, June 12th.

In a statement Wednesday June 13th, Campbell Brown, Facebook’s head of global news partnerships, said the company recognized "that news content was different from political and issue advertising," and promised to create a "differentiated space within our archive to separate news content from political and issue ads." But Brown rejected the publishers’ request for a "whitelist" of legitimate news organizations whose ads would not be considered political.

"Removing an entire group of advertisers, in this case publishers, would go against our transparency efforts and the work we’re doing to shore up election integrity on Facebook," she wrote."“We don’t want to be in a position where a bad actor obfuscates its identity by claiming to be a news publisher." Many of the foreign agents that bought ads to sway the 2016 presidential election, the company has said, posed as journalistic outlets.

Her response didn’t satisfy news organizations. Facebook "continues to characterize professional news and opinion as ‘advertising’ — which is both misguided and dangerous," said David Chavern, chief executive of the News Media Alliance — a trade association representing 2,000 news organizations in the U.S. and Canada —and co-author of an open letter to Facebook on June 11.

ProPublica asked Facebook to explain its decision to block 14 advertisements shared with us by news outlets. Of those, 12 were ultimately rejected as political content, one was overturned on appeal, and one Facebook could not locate in its records. Most of these publications, including The Hechinger Report, are affiliated with the Institute for Nonprofit News, a consortium of mostly small nonprofit newsrooms that produce primarily investigative journalism (ProPublica is a member).

Here are a few examples of news organization ads that were rejected as political:

• Voice of Monterey Bay tried to boost an interview with labor leader Dolores Huerta headlined "She Still Can." After the ad ran for about a day, Facebook sent an alert that the ad had been turned off. The outlet is refusing to seek approval for political ads, “since we are a news organization,” said Julie Martinez, co-founder of the nonprofit news site.
• Ensia tried to advertise an article headlined: "Opinion: We need to talk about how logging in the Southern U.S. is harming local residents." It was rejected as political. Ensia will not appeal or buy new ads until Facebook addresses the issue, said senior editor David Doody.
• inewsource tried to promote a post about a local candidate, headlined: "Scott Peters’ Plea to Get San Diego Unified Homeless Funding Rejected." The ad was rejected as political. inewsource appealed successfully, but then Facebook changed its mind and rejected it again, a spokeswoman for the social network said.
• BirminghamWatch tried to boost a post about a story headlined, "‘That is Crazy:’ 17 Steps to Cutting Checks for Birmingham Neighborhood Projects." The ad was rejected as political and rejected again on appeal. A little while later, BirminghamWatch’s advertiser on the account received a message from Facebook: "Finish boosting your post for $15, up to 15,000 people will see it in NewsFeed and it can get more likes, comments, and shares." The nonprofit news site appealed again, and the ad was rejected again.

For most of its history, Facebook treated political ads like any other ads. Last October, a month after disclosing that "inauthentic accounts… operated out of Russia" had spent $100,000 on 3,000 ads that "appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages," the company announced it would implement new rules for election ads. Then in April, it said the rules would also apply to issue-related ads.

The policy took effect last month, at a time when Facebook’s relationship with the news industry was already rocky. A recent algorithm change reduced the number of posts from news organizations that users see in their news feed, thus decreasing the amount of traffic many media outlets can bring in without paying for wider exposure, and frustrating publishers who had come to rely on Facebook as a way to reach a broader audience.

Facebook has pledged to assign 3,000-4,000 "content moderators" to monitor political ads, but hasn’t reached that staffing level yet. The company told ProPublica that it is committed to meeting the goal by the U.S. midterm elections this fall.

To ward off "bad actors who try to game our enforcement system," Facebook has kept secret its specific parameters and keywords for determining if an ad is political. It has published only the list of 20 national issues, which it says is based in part on a data-coding system developed by a network of political scientists called the Comparative Agendas Project. A director on that project, Frank Baumgartner, said the lack of transparency is problematic.

"I think [filtering for political speech] is a puzzle that can be solved by algorithms and big data, but it has to be done right and the code needs to be transparent and publicly available. You can’t have proprietary algorithms determining what we see," Baumgartner said.

However Facebook’s algorithms work, they are missing overtly political ads. Incumbent members of Congress, national advocacy groups and advocates of local ballot initiatives have all run ads on Facebook without the social network’s promised transparency measures, after they were supposed to be implemented.

Ads from Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat-Oregon, Representative Don Norcross, Democrat-New Jersey, and Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat-Washington, all ran without disclaimers as recently as this past Monday. So did an ad from Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing group that represented a Christian baker whose refusal for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was upheld by the Supreme Court this month. And ads from NORML, the marijuana legalization advocacy group and MoveOn, the liberal organization, ran for weeks before being taken down.

ProPublica asked Facebook why these ads weren’t considered political. The company said it is reviewing them. "Enforcement is never perfect at launch," it said.

Clarification, June 15, 2018: This article has been updated to include more specific information about the kinds of advertising New York Media has stopped buying on Facebook’s platform.

Filed under:

• Politics
• Technology

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

North Carolina Provides Its Residents With an Opt-out From Smart Meter Installations. Will It Last?

Wise consumers know how smart utility meters operate. Unlike conventional analog meters which must be read manually on-site by a technician from the utility, smart meters perform two-way digital communication with the service provider, have memory to digitally store a year's worth of your usage, and transmit your usage at regular intervals (e.g., every 15 minutes). Plus, consumers have little or no control over smart meters installed on their property.

There is some good news. Residents in North Carolina can say "no" to smart meter installations by their power company. The Charlotte Observer reported:

"Residents who say they suffer from acute sensitivity to radio-frequency waves can say no to Duke's smart meters — as long as they have a notarized doctor's note to attest to their rare condition. The N.C. Utilities Commission, which sets utility rates and rules, created the new standard on Friday, possibly making North Carolina the first state to limit the smart meter technology revolution by means of a medical opinion... Duke Energy's two North Carolina utility subsidiaries are in the midst of switching its 3.4 million North Carolina customers to smart meters..."

While it currently is free to opt out and get an analog meter instead, that could change:

"... Duke had proposed charging customers extra if they refused a smart meter. Duke wanted to charge an initial fee of $150 plus $11.75 a month to cover the expense of sending someone out to that customer's house to take a monthly meter reading. But the Utilities Commission opted to give the benefit of the doubt to customers with smart meter health issues until the Federal Communications Commission determines the health risks of the devices."

The Smart Grid Awareness blog contains more information about activities in North Carolina. There are privacy concerns with smart meters. Smart meters can be used to profile consumers with a high degree of accuracy and details. One can easily deduce the number of persons living in the dwelling, when they are home and the duration, which electric appliances are used when they are home, the presence of security and alarm systems, and any special conditions (e.g., in-home medical equipment, baby appliances, etc.).

Other states are considering similar measures. The Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) will hold a public meeting only July 9th and accept public comments about planned smart meter deployments by Kentucky Utilities Co. (KU) and Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). Smart meters are being deployed in New Jersey.

When Maryland lawmakers considered legislation to provide law enforcement with access to consumers' smart meters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) responded with a January 16, 2018 letter outlining the privacy concerns:

"HB 56 is a sensible and effective response to an emerging privacy issue facing Maryland residents. Smart meters collect detailed personal data about the use of utility services. With a smart meter, it is possible to determine when a person is in a residence, and what they are doing. Moreover the routine collection of this data, without adequate privacy safeguards, would enable ongoing surveillance of Maryland residents without regard to any criminal suspicion."

"HB 56 does not prevent law enforcement use of data generated by smart meters; it simply requires that law enforcement follow clear procedures, subject to judicial oversight, to access the data generated by smart meters. HB 56 is an example of a model privacy law that enables innovation while safeguarding personal privacy."

That's a worthy goal of government: balance the competing needs of the business sector to innovate while protecting consumers' privacy. Is a medical opt-out sufficient? Should Fourth Amendment constitutional concerns apply? What are your opinions?

The Wireless Carrier With At Least 8 'Hidden Spy Hubs' Helping The NSA

During the late 1970s and 1980s, AT&T conducted an iconic “reach out and touch someone” advertising campaign to encourage consumers to call their friends, family, and classmates. Back then, it was old school -- landlines. The campaign ranked #80 on Ad Age's list of the 100 top ad campaigns from the last century.

Now, we learn a little more about how extensive pervasive surveillance activities are at AT&T facilities to help law enforcement reach out and touch persons. Yesterday, the Intercept reported:

"The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it "has access to information that transits the nation," but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.”

The new report describes in detail the activities at eight AT&T facilities in major cities across the United States. Consumers who use other branded wireless service providers are also affected:

"Because of AT&T’s position as one of the U.S.’s leading telecommunications companies, it has a large network that is frequently used by other providers to transport their customers’ data. Companies that “peer” with AT&T include the American telecommunications giants Sprint, Cogent Communications, and Level 3, as well as foreign companies such as Sweden’s Telia, India’s Tata Communications, Italy’s Telecom Italia, and Germany’s Deutsche Telekom."

It was five years ago this month that the public learned about extensive surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Back then, the Guardian UK newspaper reported about a court order allowing the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens. The revelations continued, and by 2016 we'd learned about NSA code inserted in Android operating system software, the FISA Court and how it undermines the public's trust, the importance of metadata and how much it reveals about you (despite some politicians' claims otherwise), the unintended consequences from broad NSA surveillance, U.S. government spy agencies' goal to break all encryption methods, warrantless searches of U.S. citizens' phone calls and e-mail messages, the NSA's facial image data collection program, the data collection programs included ordinary (e.g., innocent) citizens besides legal targets, and how  most hi-tech and telecommunications companies assisted the government with its spy programs. We knew before that AT&T was probably the best collaborator, and now we know more about why. 

Content vacuumed up during the surveillance includes consumers' phone calls, text messages, e-mail messages, and internet activity. The latest report by the Intercept also described:

"The messages that the NSA had unlawfully collected were swept up using a method of surveillance known as “upstream,” which the agency still deploys for other surveillance programs authorized under both Section 702 of FISA and Executive Order 12333. The upstream method involves tapping into communications as they are passing across internet networks – precisely the kind of electronic eavesdropping that appears to have taken place at the eight locations identified by The Intercept."

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden commented on Twitter:

This thread has some great behind-the-scenes details about how a couple reporters just managed to confirm a story people have been trying to nail since 2005: how and where @NSAGov and @ATT are tapping into America's internet communications. https://t.co/smNnMxaVB3

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) June 25, 2018

Supreme Court Ruling Requires Government To Obtain Search Warrants To Collect Users' Location Data

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a decision which requires the government to obtain warrants in order to collect information from wireless carriers such as geo-location data. 9to5Mac reported that the court case resulted from:

"... a 2010 case of armed robberies in Detroit in which prosecutors used data from wireless carriers to make a conviction. In this case, lawyers had access to about 13,000 location data points. The sticking point has been whether access and use of data like this violates the Fourth Amendment. Apple, along with Google and Facebook had previously submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing for privacy protection..."

The Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The New York Times reported:

"The 5-to-4 ruling will protect "deeply revealing" records associated with 400 million devices, the chief justice wrote. It did not matter, he wrote, that the records were in the hands of a third party. That aspect of the ruling was a significant break from earlier decisions. The Constitution must take account of vast technological changes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, noting that digital data can provide a comprehensive, detailed — and intrusive — overview of private affairs that would have been impossible to imagine not long ago. The decision made exceptions for emergencies like bomb threats and child abductions..."

Background regarding the Fourth Amendment:

"In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court expressed discomfort with allowing unlimited government access to digital data. In United States v. Jones, it limited the ability of the police to use GPS devices to track suspects’ movements. And in Riley v. California, it required a warrant to search cellphones. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that both decisions supported the result in the new case.

The Supreme court's decision also discussed historical use of the "third-party doctrine" by law enforcement:

"In 1979, for instance, in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that a robbery suspect had no reasonable expectation that his right to privacy extended to the numbers dialed from his landline phone. The court reasoned that the suspect had voluntarily turned over that information to a third party: the phone company. Relying on the Smith decision’s “third-party doctrine,” federal appeals courts have said that government investigators seeking data from cellphone companies showing users’ movements do not require a warrant. But Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the doctrine is of limited use in the digital age. “While the third-party doctrine applies to telephone numbers and bank records, it is not clear whether its logic extends to the qualitatively different category of cell-site records,” he wrote."

The ruling also covered the Stored Communications Act, which requires:

"... prosecutors to go to court to obtain tracking data, but the showing they must make under the law is not probable cause, the standard for a warrant. Instead, they must demonstrate only that there were “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” That was insufficient, the court ruled. But Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the limits of the decision. It did not address real-time cell tower data, he wrote, “or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras.” "

What else this Supreme Court decision might mean:

"The decision thus has implications for all kinds of personal information held by third parties, including email and text messages, internet searches, and bank and credit card records. But Chief Justice Roberts said the ruling had limits. "We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party," the chief justice wrote. The court’s four more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — joined his opinion."

Dissenting opinions by conservative Justices cited restrictions on law enforcement's abilities and further litigation. Breitbart News focused upon divisions within the Supreme Court and dissenting Justices' opinions, rather than a comprehensive explanation of the majority's opinion and law. Some conservatives say that President Trump will have an opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court Justices.

Albert Gidari, the Consulting Director of Privacy at the Stanford Law Center for Internet and Society, discussed the Court's ruling:

"What a Difference a Week Makes. The government sought seven days of records from the carrier; it got two days. The Court held that seven days or more was a search and required a warrant. So can the government just ask for 6 days with a subpoena or court order under the Stored Communications Act? Here’s what Justice Roberts said in footnote 3: “[W]e need not decide whether there is a limited period for which the Government may obtain an individual’s historical CSLI free from Fourth Amendment scrutiny, and if so, how long that period might be. It is sufficient for our purposes today to hold that accessing seven days of CSLI constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.” You can bet that will be litigated in the coming years, but the real question is what will mobile carriers do in the meantime... Where You Walk and Perhaps Your Mere Presence in Public Spaces Can Be Private. The Court said this clearly: “A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”” This is the most important part of the Opinion in my view. It’s potential impact is much broader than the location record at issue in the case..."

Mr. Gidari's essay explored several more issues:

• Does the Decision Really Make a Difference to Law Enforcement?
• Are All Business Records in the Hands of Third Parties Now Protected?
• Does It Matter Whether You Voluntarily Give the Data to a Third Party?

And:

ACLU attorney @NateWessler explains what today's major Supreme Court victory on cellphone location tracking means for your privacy rights. pic.twitter.com/S1i9H0Fuk7

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 22, 2018

Most people carry their smartphones with them 24/7 and everywhere they go. Hence, the geo-location data trail contains unique and very personal movements: where and whom you visit, how often and long you visit, who else (e.g., their smartphones) is nearby, and what you do (e.g., calls, mobile apps) at certain locations. The Supreme Court, or at least a majority of its Justices, seem to recognize and value this.

What are your opinions of the Supreme Court ruling?

Lawmakers In California Cave To Industry Lobbying, And Backtrack With Weakened Net Neutrality Bill

After the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) acted last year to repeal net neutrality rules, those protections officially expired on June 11th. Meanwhile, legislators in California have acted to protect their state's residents. In January, State Senator Weiner introduced in January a proposed bill, which was passed by the California Senate three weeks ago.

Since then, some politicians have countered with a modified bill lacking strong protections. C/Net reported:

"The vote on Wednesday in a California Assembly committee hearing advanced a bill that implements some net neutrality protections, but it scaled back all the measures of the bill that had gone beyond the rules outlined in the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 regulation, which was officially taken off the books by the Trump Administration's commission last week. In a surprise move, the vote happened before the hearing officially started,..."

Weiner's original bill was considered the "gold standard" of net neutrality protections for consumers because:

"... it went beyond the FCC's 2015 net neutrality "bright line" rules by including provisions like a ban on zero-rating, a business practice that allows broadband providers like AT&T to exempt their own services from their monthly wireless data caps, while services from competitors are counted against those limits. The result is a market controlled by internet service providers like AT&T, who can shut out the competition by creating an economic disadvantage for those competitors through its wireless service plans."

State Senator Weiner summarized the modified legislation:

"It is, with the amendments, a fake net neutrality bill..."

A key supporter of the modified, weak bill was Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles. Motherboard reported:

"Spearheading the rushed dismantling of the promising law was Committee Chair Miguel Santiago, a routine recipient of AT&T campaign contributions. Santiago’s office failed to respond to numerous requests for comment from Motherboard and numerous other media outlets... Weiner told the San Francisco Chronicle that the AT&T fueled “evisceration” of his proposal was “decidedly unfair.” But that’s historically how AT&T, a company with an almost comical amount of control over state legislatures, tends to operate. The company has so much power in many states, it’s frequently allowed to quite literally write terrible state telecom law..."

Supporters of this weakened bill either forgot or ignored the results from a December 2017 study of 1,077 voters. Most consumers want net neutrality protections:

Do you favor or oppose the proposal to give ISPs the freedom to: a) provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower speed for other websites; b) block access to certain websites; and c) charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites?
Group	Favor	Opposed	Refused/Don't Know
National	15.5%	82.9%	1.6%
Republicans	21.0%	75.4%	3.6%
Democrats	11.0%	88.5%	0.5%
Independents	14.0%	85.9%	0.1%

Why would politicians pursue weak net neutrality bills with few protections, while constituents want those protections? They are doing the bidding of the corporate internet service providers (ISPs) at the expense of their constituents. Profits before people. These politicians promote the freedom for ISPs to do as they please while restricting consumers' freedoms to use the bandwidth they've purchased however they please.

Broadcasting and Cable reported:

"These California democrats will go down in history as among the worst corporate shills that have ever held elected office," said Evan Greer of net neutrality activist group Fight for the Future. "Californians should rise up and demand that at their Assembly members represent them. The actions of this committee are an attack not just on net neutrality, but on our democracy.” According to Greer, the vote passed 8-0, with Democrats joining Republicans to amend the bill."

According to C/Net, more than 24 states are considering net neutrality legislation to protect their residents:

"... New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, are also considering legislation to reinstate net neutrality rules. Oregon and Washington state have already signed their own net neutrality legislation into law. Governors in several states, including New Jersey and Montana, have signed executive orders requiring ISPs that do business with the state adhere to net neutrality principles."

So, we have AT&T (plus politicians more interested in corporate donors than their constituents, the FCC, President Trump, and probably other telecommunications companies) to thank for this mess. What do you think?

Several States Updated Their Existing Breach Notification Laws, Or Introduced New Laws

Given the increased usage of data in digital formats, new access methods, and continual data breaches within corporations and governments, several state governments have updated their data breach notification laws, and/or passed new laws:

Alabama

The last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Kay Ivey signed in March the state's first data breach law: the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (SB 318), which became effective on June 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) similar to other states, the law defined the format and types of data elements which must be protected, including health information; b) defined "covered entities" including state government agencies and "third-party agents" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; c) requires notification of affected individuals within 45 days, and to the state Attorney General; and d) while penalties aren't mandatory, the law allows civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for, "each consecutive day that the covered entity fails to take reasonable action to comply with the notice provisions of this act."

Arizona

Earlier this year, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation updating the state's breach notification laws. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definitions of personal information to include medical or mental health treatment/diagnosis, passport numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, biometric data, e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; b) set the notification window for affected persons at 45 days; c) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; d) and if the breach affected more than 1,000 persons, then notification must provided to the three national credit-reporting agencies and to the state Attorney General.

Colorado

Colorado Governor John Hickenloope signed on May 29th several laws including HB-1128, which will go into effect on september 1, 2018. Some experts view HB-1128 as the strongest protections in the country. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded "covered entities" to include certain "third-party service providers" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; b) expanded definitions of "personal information" to include biometric data, plus e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, post on website, statewide news media) if the cost of basic notification would exceed $250,000; d) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; e) sets the notification window at 30 days, if the breach affected more than 500 Colorado residents; and f) expanded requirements for companies to protected personal information.

Louisiana

Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed in May 2018 an amendment to the state’s Database Security Breach Notification Law (Act 382) which will take effect August 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definition of ‘personal information’ to include a state identification card number, passport number, and “biometric data” (e.g., fingerprints, voice prints, eye retina or iris, or other unique biological characteristics used to access systems); b) removed vagueness and defined the notification window as within 60 days; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on affected company's website, statewide news media); and d) tightened required that companies utilizing "computerized data" better protect the information they archive.

South Dakota

The next-to-last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law in March the state’s first breach notification law (SB 62). Like breach laws in other states, it provides definitions of what a breach is, personal information which must be protected, covered entities (e.g., companies, government agencies) subject to the law, notification requirements, and conditions when substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on the affected entity's website, statewide news media) are allowed.

To Summarize

New Mexico enacted its new breach notification law (HB 15) in March, 2017. With the additions of Alabama and South Dakota, finally every state has a breach notification law. Sadly, it has taken 16 years. California was the first state to enact a breach notification law in 2002. It has taken that long for other states to catch up... not only catch up with California, but also catch up with technological changes driven by the internet.

California has led the way for a long time. It banned RFID skimming in 2008, co-hosted privacy workshops with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2008, strengthened its existing breach law in 2011, and introduced in 2013 privacy guidelines for mobile app developers. Other states' legislatures can learn from this leadership.

Want to learn more? Detailed reviews of new and updated breach laws are available in the National Law Review website.

Apple To Close Security Hole Law Enforcement Frequently Used To Access iPhones

You may remember. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to force Apple Computer to build a back door into its devices so law enforcement could access suspects' iPhones. After Apple refused, the government found a vendor to do the hacking for them. In 2017, multiple espionage campaigns targeted Apple devices with new malware.

Now, we learn a future Apple operating system (iOS) software update will close a security hole frequently used by law enforcement. Reuters reported that the future iOS update will include default settings to terminate communications through the USB port when the device hasn't been unlocked within the past hour. Reportedly, that change may reduce access by 90 percent.

Kudos to the executives at Apple for keeping customers' privacy foremost.

When "Unlimited" Mobile Plans Are Anything But

My apologies to readers for the 10-day gap in blog posts. I took a few days off to attend a high school reunion in another state. Time passes more quickly than you think. It was good to renew connections with classmates.

Speaking of connections, several telecommunications companies appear to either ignore or not know the meaning of "unlimited" for mobile internet access. 9To5mac reported:

"Not content with offering one ‘unlimited’ plan which isn’t, and a second ‘beyond unlimited’ plan which also isn’t, Verizon has now decided the solution to this is a third plan. The latest addition is called ‘above unlimited’ and, you guessed it, it’s not... The carrier has the usual get-out clause, claiming that all three plans really are unlimited, it’s just that they reserve the right to throttle your connection speed once you hit the stated, ah, limits."

Some of the mobile plans limit video to low-resolution formats. Do you prefer to watch in 2018 low-resolution video formatted to 2008 (or earlier)? I think not. Do you want your connection slowed after you reach a data download threshold? I think not.

I look forward to action by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the definition of "unlimited," since the "light-touch" regulatory approach by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) means that the FCC has abandoned its duties regarding oversight of internet service providers.

Caveat emptor, or buyer beware, definitely applies. Wise consumers read the fine print before purchase of any online services.

Google To Exit Weaponized Drone Contract And Pursue Other Defense Projects

Last month, protests by current and former Google employees, plus academic researchers, cited ethical and transparency concerns with artificial intelligence (AI) help the company provides to the U.S. Department of Defense for Project Maven, a weaponized drone program to identify people. Gizmodo reported that Google plans not to renew its contract for Project Maven:

"Google Cloud CEO Diane Greene announced the decision at a meeting with employees Friday morning, three sources told Gizmodo. The current contract expires in 2019 and there will not be a follow-up contract... The company plans to unveil new ethical principles about its use of AI this week... Google secured the Project Maven contract in late September, the emails reveal, after competing for months against several other “AI heavyweights” for the work. IBM was in the running, as Gizmodo reported last month, along with Amazon and Microsoft... Google is reportedly competing for a Pentagon cloud computing contract worth $10 billion."