478 posts categorized "Government" Feed

3 Countries Sent A Joint Letter Asking Facebook To Delay End-To-End Encryption Until Law Enforcement Has Back-Door Access. 58 Concerned Organizations Responded

Plenty of privacy and surveillance news recently. Last week, the governments of three countries sent a joint, open letter to Facebook.com asking the social media platform to delay implementation of end-to-end encryption in its messaging apps until back-door access can be provided for law enforcement.

Facebook logo Buzzfeed News published the joint, open letter by U.S. Attorney General William Barr, United Kingdom Home Secretary Priti Patel, acting US Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, and Australian Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton. The letter, dated October 4th, was sent to Mark Zuckerberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook. It read in part:

"OPEN LETTER: FACEBOOK’S “PRIVACY FIRST” PROPOSALS

We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety and without including a means for lawful access to the content of communications to protect our citizens.

In your post of 6 March 2019, “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking,” you acknowledged that “there are real safety concerns to address before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all our messaging services.” You stated that “we have a responsibility to work with law enforcement and to help prevent” the use of Facebook for things like child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We welcome this commitment to consultation. As you know, our governments have engaged with Facebook on this issue, and some of us have written to you to express our views. Unfortunately, Facebook has not committed to address our serious concerns about the impact its proposals could have on protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

We support strong encryption, which is used by billions of people every day for services such as banking, commerce, and communications. We also respect promises made by technology companies to protect users’ data. Law abiding citizens have a legitimate expectation that their privacy will be protected. However, as your March blog post recognized, we must ensure that technology companies protect their users and others affected by their users’ online activities. Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world..."

The open, joint letter is also available on the United Kingdom government site. Mr. Zuckerberg's complete March 6, 2019 post is available here.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) seeking quotes from technology companies to build a real-time social media monitoring tool. It seems, such a tool would have limited utility without back-door access to encrypted social media accounts.

In 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) filed a lawsuit to force Apple Inc. to build "back door" software to unlock an attacker's iPhone. Apple refused as back-door software would provide access to any iPhone, not only this particular smartphone. Ultimately, the FBI found an offshore tech company to build the backdoor. Later that year, then FBI Director James Comey suggested a national discussion about encryption versus safety. It seems, the country still hasn't had that conversation.

According to BuzzFeed, Facebook's initial response to the joint letter:

"In a three paragraph statement, Facebook said it strongly opposes government attempts to build backdoors."

We shall see if Facebook holds steady to that position. Privacy advocates quickly weighed in. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote:

"This is a staggering attempt to undermine the security and privacy of communications tools used by billions of people. Facebook should not comply. The letter comes in concert with the signing of a new agreement between the US and UK to provide access to allow law enforcement in one jurisdiction to more easily obtain electronic data stored in the other jurisdiction. But the letter to Facebook goes much further: law enforcement and national security agencies in these three countries are asking for nothing less than access to every conversation... The letter focuses on the challenges of investigating the most serious crimes committed using digital tools, including child exploitation, but it ignores the severe risks that introducing encryption backdoors would create. Many people—including journalists, human rights activists, and those at risk of abuse by intimate partners—use encryption to stay safe in the physical world as well as the online one. And encryption is central to preventing criminals and even corporations from spying on our private conversations... What’s more, the backdoors into encrypted communications sought by these governments would be available not just to governments with a supposedly functional rule of law. Facebook and others would face immense pressure to also provide them to authoritarian regimes, who might seek to spy on dissidents..."

The new agreement the EFF referred to was explained in this United Kingdom announcement:

"The world-first UK-US Bilateral Data Access Agreement will dramatically speed up investigations and prosecutions by enabling law enforcement, with appropriate authorisation, to go directly to the tech companies to access data, rather than through governments, which can take years... The current process, which see requests for communications data from law enforcement agencies submitted and approved by central governments via Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), can often take anywhere from six months to two years. Once in place, the Agreement will see the process reduced to a matter of weeks or even days."

The Agreement will each year accelerate dozens of complex investigations into suspected terrorists and paedophiles... The US will have reciprocal access, under a US court order, to data from UK communication service providers. The UK has obtained assurances which are in line with the government’s continued opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances..."

On Friday, a group of 58 privacy advocates and concerned organizations from several countries sent a joint letter to Facebook regarding its end-to-end encryption plans. The Center For Democracy & Technology (CDT) posted the group's letter:

"Given the remarkable reach of Facebook’s messaging services, ensuring default end-to-end security will provide a substantial boon to worldwide communications freedom, to public safety, and to democratic values, and we urge you to proceed with your plans to encrypt messaging through Facebook products and services. We encourage you to resist calls to create so-called “backdoors” or “exceptional access” to the content of users’ messages, which will fundamentally weaken encryption and the privacy and security of all users."

It seems wise to have a conversation to discuss all of the advantages and disadvantages; and not selectively focus only upon some serious crimes while ignoring other significant risks, since back-door software can be abused like any other technology. What are your opinions?


Vancouver, Canada Welcomed The 'Tesla Of The Cruise Industry." Ports In France Consider Bans For Certain Cruise Ships

For drivers concerned about the environment and pollution, the automobile industry has offered hybrids (which run on gasoline, and electric battery power) and completely electric vehicles (solely on electric battery power). The same technology trend is underway within the cruise industry.

On September 26, the Port of Vancouver welcomed the MS Roald Amundsen. Some call this cruise ship the "Tesla of the cruise industry." The International Business Times explained:

"MS Roald Amundsen can be called Tesla of the cruise industry as it is similar to the electrically powered Tesla car that set off a revolution in the auto sector by running on batteries... The state of the art ship was unveiled earlier this year by Scandinavian cruise operator Hurtigruten. The cruise ship is one of the most sustainable cruise vessels with the distinction of being one of the two hybrid-electric cruise ships in the world. MS Roald Amundsen utilizes hybrid technology to save fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent."

Hurtigruten logo With 15 cruise ships, Hurtigruten offers sailings to Norway, Iceland, Alaska, Arctic, Antarctica, Europe, South America, and more. Named after the first man to cross Antarctica and reach the South Pole, the MS Roald Amundsen carries about 530 passengers.

View of solar panels on the Celebrity Solstice cruise ship in March, 2019. Click to view larger version While some cruise ships already use onboard solar panels to reduce fuel consumption, this is the first hybrid-electric cruise ship. It is an important step forward to prove that large ships can be powered in this manner.

Several ships in Royal Caribbean Cruise Line's fleet, including the Oasis of the Seas, have been outfitted with solar panels. The image on the right provides a view of  the solar panels on the Celebrity Solstice cruise ship, while it was docked in Auckland, New Zealand in March, 2019. The panels are small and let sunlight through.

The Vancouver Is Awesome site explained why the city gave the MS Roald Amundsen special attention:

"... the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the federal agency responsible for the stewardship of the port, has set its vision to be the world’s most sustainable port. As a part of this vision, the port authority works to ensure the highest level of environmental protection is met in and around the Port of Vancouver. This commitment resulted in the port authority being the first in Canada and third in the world to offer shore power, an emissions-reducing initiative, for cruise ships. That said, a shared commitment to sustainability isn’t the only thing Hurtigruten has in common with our awesome city... The hybrid-electric battery used in the MS Roald Amundsen was created by Vancouver company, Corvus Energy."

Port Of Vancouver, Canada logo Reportedly, the MS Roald Amundsen can operate for brief periods of time only on battery power, resulting in zero fuel usage and zero emissions. The Port of Vancouver's website explains its Approach to Sustainability policy:

"We are on a journey to meet our vision to become the world’s most sustainable port. In 2010 we embarked on a two-year scenario planning process with stakeholders called Port 2050, to improve our understanding of what the region may look like in the future... We believe a sustainable port delivers economic prosperity through trade, maintains a healthy environment, and enables thriving communities, through meaningful dialogue, shared aspirations and collective accountability. Our definition of sustainability includes 10 areas of focus and 22 statements of success..."

I encourage everyone to read the Port of Vancouver's 22 statements of success for a healthy environment and sustainable port. Selected statements from that list:

"Healthy ecosystems:
8) Takes a holistic approach to protecting and improving air, land and water quality to promote biodiversity and human health
9) Champions coordinated management programs to protect habitats and species. Climate action
10) Is a leader among ports in energy conservation and alternative energy to minimize greenhouse gas emissions..."

"Responsible practices:
12) Improves the environmental, social and economic performance of infrastructure through design, construction and operational practices
13) Supports responsible practices throughout the global supply chain..."

"Aboriginal relationships:
18) Respects First Nations’ traditional territories and value traditional knowledge
19) Embraces and celebrates Aboriginal culture and history
20) Understands and considers contemporary interests and aspirations..."

In separate but related news, government officials in the French Riviera city of Cannes are considering a ban of cruise ships to curb pollution. The Travel Pulse site reported:

"The ban would apply to passenger vessels that do not meet a 0.1 percent sulfur cap in their fuel emissions. Any cruise ship that attempted to enter the port that did not meet the higher standards would be turned away without allowing passengers to disembark."

During 2018, about 370,000 cruise ship passengers visited Cannes, making it the fourth busiest port in France. Officials are concerned about pollution. Other European ports are considering similar bans:

"Another French city, Saint-Raphael, has also instituted similar rules to curb the pollution of the water and air around the city. Other European ports such as Santorini and Venice have also cited cruise ships as a significant cause of over-tourism across the region."

If you live and/or work in a port city, it seems worthwhile to ask your local government or port authority what it is doing about sustainability and pollution. The video below explains some of the features in this new "expedition ship" with itineraries and activities that focus upon science:


Video courtesy of Hurtigruten

[Editor's note: this post was updated to include a photo of solar panels on the Celebrity Solstice cruise ship.]


The New Target That Enables Ransomware Hackers to Paralyze Dozens of Towns and Businesses at Once

[Editor's note: today's guest post, by reporters at ProPublica, is part of a series which discusses trends in cyberattacks and data breaches. It is reprinted with permission.]

By Renee Dudley, ProPublica

On July 3, employees at Arbor Dental in Longview, Washington, noticed glitches in their computers and couldn’t view X-rays. Arbor was one of dozens of dental clinics in Oregon and Washington stymied by a ransomware attack that disrupted their business and blocked access to patients’ records.

But the hackers didn’t target the clinics directly. Instead, they infiltrated them by exploiting vulnerable cybersecurity at Portland-based PM Consultants Inc., which handled the dentists’ software updates, firewalls and data backups. Arbor’s frantic calls to PM went to voicemail, said Whitney Joy, the clinic’s office coordinator.

“The second it happened, they ghosted everybody,” she said. “They didn’t give us a heads up.”

A week later, PM sent an email to clients. “Due to the size and scale of the attack, we are not optimistic about the chances for a full or timely recovery,” it wrote. “At this time we must recommend you seek outside technical assistance with the recovery of your data.”

On July 22, PM notified clients in an email that it was shutting down, “in part due to this devastating event.” The contact phone number listed on PM's website is disconnected, and the couple that managed the firm did not respond to messages left on their cellphones.

The attack on the dental clinics illustrates a new and worrisome frontier in ransomware — the targeting of managed service providers, or MSPs, to which local governments, medical clinics, and other small- and medium-sized businesses outsource their IT needs. While many MSPs offer reliable support and data storage, others have proven inexperienced or understaffed, unable to defend their own computer systems or help clients salvage files. As a result, cybercriminals profit by infiltrating dozens of businesses or public agencies with a single attack, while the beleaguered MSPs and their incapacitated clients squabble over who should pay the ransom or recovery costs.

Cost savings are the chief appeal of MSPs. It’s often cheaper and more convenient for towns and small businesses with limited technical needs to rely on an MSP rather than hire full-time IT employees. But those benefits are sometimes illusory. This year, attacks on MSPs have paralyzed thousands of small businesses and public agencies. Huntress Labs, a Maryland-based cybersecurity and software firm, has worked with about three dozen MSPs struck by ransomware this year, its executives said. In one incident, 4,200 computers were infected by ransomware through a single MSP.

Last month, hackers infiltrated MSPs in Texas and Wisconsin. An attack on TSM Consulting Services Inc. of Rockwall, Texas, crippled 22 cities and towns, while one on PerCSoft of West Allis, Wisconsin, deprived 400 dental practices around the country of access to electronic files, the Wisconsin Dental Association said in a letter to members. PerCSoft, which hackers penetrated through its cloud remote management software, said in a letter to victims that it had obtained a key to decrypt the ransomware, indicating that it likely paid a ransom. PerCSoft did not return a message seeking comment.

TSM referred questions about the Texas attack to the state’s Department of Information Resources, which referred questions to the FBI, which confirmed that the ransomware struck the towns through TSM. One of the 22 Texas municipalities has been hit by ransomware twice in the past year while using TSM’s services.

FBI spokeswoman Melinda Urbina acknowledged that MSPs are profitable targets for hackers. “Those are the targets they’re going after because they know that those individuals would be more apt to pay because they want to get those services back online for the public,” she said.

Beyond the individual victims, the MSPs’ shortcomings have a larger consequence. They foster the spread of ransomware, one of the world’s most common cybercrimes. By failing to provide clients with reliable backups or to maintain their own cybersecurity, and in some cases paying ransoms when alternatives are available, they may in effect reward criminals and give them an incentive to strike again. This year, ProPublica has reported on other industries in the ransomware economy, such as data recovery and insurance, which also have enriched ransomware hackers.

To get inside MSPs, attackers have capitalized on security lapses such as weak passwords and failure to use two-factor authentication. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, they also have exploited vulnerabilities in “remote monitoring and management” software that the firms use to install computer updates and handle clients’ other IT needs. Even when patches for such vulnerabilities are available, MSPs sometimes haven’t installed them.

The remote management tools are like “golden keys to immediately distribute ransomware,” said Huntress CEO Kyle Hanslovan. “Just like how you’d want to push a patch at lightning speed, it turns out you can push out ransomware at lightning speed as well.”

Otherwise, the hacker may spread the ransomware manually, infecting computers one at a time using software that normally allows MSP technicians to remotely view and click around on a client’s screen to resolve an IT problem, Hanslovan said. One Huntress client had the “record session” feature of this software automatically enabled. By watching those recordings following the attack, Huntress was able to view exactly how the hacker installed and tracked ransomware on the machines.

In some cases, Hanslovan said, MSPs have failed to save and store backup files properly for clients who paid specifically for that service so that systems would be restored in the event of an attack. Instead, the MSPs may have relied on low-cost and insufficient backup solutions, he said. Last month, he said, Huntress worked with an MSP whose clients’ computers and backup files were encrypted in a ransomware attack. The only way to restore the files was to pay the ransom, Hanslovan said.

Even when backups are available, MSPs sometimes prefer to pay the ransom. Hackers have leverage in negotiations because the MSP — usually a small business itself — can’t handle the volume of work for dozens of affected clients who simultaneously demand attention, said Chris Bisnett, chief architect at Huntress.

“It increases the likelihood that someone will pay rather than just try to fix it themselves,” Bisnett said. “It’s one thing if I have 50 computers that are ransomed and encrypted and I can fix them. There’s no way I have time to go and do thousands of computers all at the same time when I’ve got all these customers calling and saying: ‘Hey, we can’t do any business, we’re losing money. We need to be back right now.’ So the likelihood of the MSP just saying, ‘Oh I can’t deal with this, let me just pay,’ goes up.”

Because there are so many victims, the hacker can make a larger ransom demand with greater confidence that it will be paid, Hanslovan said. Attacking the MSP “gives you hundreds or even thousands more computers for the same cost of infection,” he said. The “support cost of negotiating the ransom is low” since the attacker typically corresponds with the MSP rather than its individual clients.

Before this year’s ransomware spree, MSPs were susceptible to other kinds of cybercrime. Last October, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned in an alert about attacks on MSPs for “purposes of cyber espionage and intellectual property theft.” It added that “MSPs generally have direct and unfettered access to their customers’ networks,” and that “a compromise in one part of an MSP’s network can spread globally, affecting other customers and introducing risk.”

The first spate of ransomware attacks on MSPs, early this year, deployed what is called the GandCrab strain. Then, in an online hacking forum, the hackers behind GandCrab announced their retirement in May. After that, another strain of ransomware known as Sodinokibi ransomware sprung up and began targeting MSPs.

Sodinokibi ransom amounts are “scaled to the size of the organization and the perceived capacity to pay,” according to Connecticut-based Coveware, which negotiates ransoms for clients hit by ransomware. Sodinokibi will not run on systems that use languages including Russian, Romanian and Ukrainian, according to security firm Cylance, possibly because those are native languages for hackers who don’t want to draw the attention of local law enforcement.

Sodinokibi was the strain used in the attack on TSM Consulting Services that encrypted the computers of 22 Texas municipalities, leaving them unable to fulfill tasks such as accepting online payments for water bills, providing copies of birth and death certificates and responding to emails. Most of the towns have not been publicly identified. More than half have returned to normal operations, the Texas Information Resources Department said in an update posted on its website. The hackers sought millions of dollars. The department is "unaware of any ransom being paid in this event," according to the update.

TSM began operations in 1997, and it provides equipment and support to more than 300 law enforcement agencies in Texas, according to its website. It is unclear why the 22 municipalities, and not TSM’s other clients, were affected by the August attack.

One of the 22 Texas municipalities hit last month was Kaufman, a city about 30 miles southeast of Dallas. An attack last November on Kaufman, which forced its police department to cease normal operations, was mentioned in a ProPublica article about two data recovery firms that purported to use proprietary technology to disable ransomware but in reality often just paid the attackers. TSM had enlisted one of the firms, Florida-based MonsterCloud, to help Kaufman recover from the November intrusion.

MonsterCloud waived its fee in exchange for a video testimonial featuring the Kaufman police chief, the president of TSM and the TSM technician who worked with Kaufman. In the testimonial, TSM technician Robby Pleasant said that the attackers had “reset everyone’s password, including the administrator,” and that the data “was locked up and not functioning.” Pleasant said in the video that MonsterCloud was able to “recover all the data” and “saved the day.”

“They can come in and recover even if someone does find a hole in our armor,” Pleasant said in the video.

Last month, attackers again found a hole in TSM’s armor. Using a third-party software vendor, rather than TSM, Kaufman had strengthened its backup system since the first attack, so it was able to restore much of the lost data, City Manager Michael Slye said. Kaufman’s computer systems were down for 24 hours, and the city handled municipal business such as writing tickets and taking payments on paper during that time, Slye said.

But backup safeguards were less effective for Kaufman’s police department, which uses a different type of software than other city offices, Slye said. The department’s dashcam video storage lost months of footage, and it still isn’t working, he said.

“It was not a fun experience to get this twice,” he said.

A TSM employee who declined to be named said the November attack may have been caused by “someone clicking on a bad email. We don’t have definitive information on that. We went into recovery mode immediately.”

PM Consultants, the Oregon provider of IT services to dental clinics, was run by a husband and wife, Charles Gosta Miller and Ava Piekarski, out of their home, according to state records. The firm didn’t employ enough technicians, said Cameron Willis, general manager of Dentech LLC in Eugene, Oregon, which took on many of PM’s former clients. Some former PM clients have complained to Willis that it was unresponsive to their requests for help, he said.

“A lot of dental office facilities don’t want to spend the money on IT infrastructure the way they should,” and they lack the technical know-how to vet providers, Willis said. They “don’t know any better. They don’t have the time to research. If you have someone who does provide some service, it’s very, very easy to see how some of the fly-by-nights would attract such a large clientele. ... When one office finds something that works, they scream it to the hills.”

In the July 22 email announcing its closure, PM said it had been “inundated with calls” on the morning of the ransomware attack, “and we immediately started investigating and trying to restore data. Throughout the next several days and into the weekend, we worked around the clock on recovery efforts. ... However, it was soon apparent the number of PC’s that needed restoration was too large for our small team to complete in any reasonable time frame.” The company was also “receiving hundreds of calls, emails and texts to which we were unable to respond.”

PM said that it had retained counsel to “assist with recovery of any available insurance, payment and billing proceeds,” and that it would be “sending out final invoices in the next two weeks.” Its formal dissolution, it continued, “will include an option to submit a claim” against the company.

Austin Covington, director of Lower Columbia Oral Health, a Longview, Washington, clinic affected by the attack, said it plans to take legal action against PM and declined to comment further. Other victims have not been publicly identified.

Some dentists “did not lose any data” because they had good backup files, Willis said. “Some clients lost some. Some lost a lot.” He doesn’t know whether clients paid ransoms, he said.

Dentech takes a different approach than PM did, Willis said. To prevent ransomware and other breaches, even its own staff has limited access to the remote management software favored by hackers, he said. It has 14 technicians, who often handle services such as software updates in person, he said. Dentech requires clients to use best practices, Willis said. If they decline, the firm requires them to sign a waiver releasing Dentech of liability in case of ransomware or other data loss.

Without such explicit terms, it’s often unclear whether the MSP or its clients are responsible for paying ransoms or recovery costs associated with an attack. Chris Loehr, executive vice president of Texas-based Solis Security, which helps victims negotiate ransom payments, was called in when GandCrab ransomware struck an MSP and encrypted some of its clients’ backup files several months ago. The MSP paid the ransom only for those that used its data backup service, which had failed, Loehr said. Clients who did not buy the backup service had to decide themselves whether to pay the ransom.

This summer, in a separate incident, Loehr negotiated with hackers on behalf of a New York-based MSP that was hit by Sodinokibi ransomware. The MSP didn’t want to pay the total ransom of about $2 million in bitcoin to unlock the files of all its clients, who were primarily architectural and engineering firms. Instead, each of the 200 affected clients was left to decide whether to pay about $10,000 in bitcoin. The MSP’s owner refused for legal reasons; he was worried that, if he was sued over the attack, a payment might be construed as an admission of fault, Loehr said.

The preponderance of low-quality MSPs has fostered the current ransomware onslaught, Loehr said. He noted that little experience or funding is needed to open an MSP; the barriers to entry are few.

“The startup costs are low,” Loehr said. “It doesn’t take much. The way the MSP world works, it’s not like you have to go out and buy $1 million of software. You can operate out of your house. These guys charge their clients up front. There is little cash flow to get this stuff off the ground.”

“Every IT guy thinks he can do this,” Loehr said. “‘Hey, I’m a technology guy.’

“No.”

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

 


Court Okays 'Data Scraping' By Analytics Firm Of Users' Public LinkedIn Profiles. Lots Of Consequences

LinkedIn logo Earlier this week, a Federal appeals court affirmed an August 2017 injunction which required LinkedIn, a professional networking platform owned by Microsoft Corporation, to allow hiQ Labs, Inc. to access members' profiles. This ruling has implications for everyone.

hiQ Labs logo First, some background. The Naked Security blog by Sophos explained in December, 2017:

"... hiQ is a company that makes its money by “scraping” LinkedIn’s public member profiles to feed two analytical systems, Keeper and Skill Mapper. Keeper can be used by employers to detect staff that might be thinking about leaving while Skill Mapper summarizes the skills and status of current and future employees. For several years, this presented no problems until, in 2016, LinkedIn decided to offer something similar, at which point it sent hiQ and others in the sector cease and desist letters and started blocking the bots reading its pages."

So, hiQ apps use algorithms which determine for its clients (prospective or current employers) which employees will stay or go. Gizmodo explained the law which LinkedIn used in its arguments in court, namely the:

".... practice of scraping publicly available information from their platform violated the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The CFAA is infamously vaguely written and makes it illegal to access a “protected computer” without or in excess of “authorization”—opening the door to sweeping interpretations that could be used to criminalize conduct not even close to what would traditionally be understood as hacking.

Second, the latest court ruling basically said two things: a) it is legal (and doesn't violate hacking laws) for companies to scrape information contained in publicly available profiles; and b) LinkedIn must allow hiQ (and potentially other firms) to continue with data-scraping. This has plenty of implications.

This recent ruling may surprise some persons, since the issue of data scraping was supposedly settled law previously. MediaPost reported:

"Monday's ruling appears to effectively overrule a decision issued six years ago in a dispute between Craigslist and the data miner 3Taps, which also scraped publicly available listings. In that matter, 3Taps allegedly scraped real estate listings and made them available to the developers PadMapper and Lively. PadMapper allegedly meshed Craigslist's apartment listings with Google maps... U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California ruled in 2013 that 3Taps potentially violated the anti-hacking law by scraping listings from Craigslist after the company told it to stop doing so."

So, you can bet that both social media sites and data analytics firms closely watched and read the appeal court's ruling this week.

Third, in theory any company or agency could then legally scrape information from public profiles on the LinkedIn platform. This scraping could be done by industries and/or entities (e.g., spy agencies worldwide) which job seekers didn't intend nor want.

Many consumers simply signed up and use LinkedIn to build professional relationship and/or to find jobs, either fulltime as employees or as contractors. The 2019 social media survey by Pew Research found that 27 percent of adults in the United States use LinkedIn, but higher usage penetration among persons with college degrees (51 percent), persons making more than $75K annually (49 percent), persons ages 25 - 29 (44 percent), persons ages 30 - 49 (37 percent), and urban residents (33 percent).  

I'll bet that many LinkedIn users never imagined that their profiles would be used against them by data analytics firms. Like it or not, that is how consumers' valuable, personal data is used (abused?) by social media sites and their clients.

Fourth, the practice of data scraping has divided tech companies. Again, from the Naked Security blog post in 2017:

"Data scraping, its seems, has become a booming tech sector that increasingly divides the industry ideologically. One side believes LinkedIn is simply trying to shut down a competitor wanting to access public data LinkedIn merely displays rather than owns..."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the DuckDuckGo search engine, and the Internet Archived had filed an amicus brief with the appeals court before its ruling. The EFF explained the group's reasoning and urged the:

"... Court of Appeals to reject LinkedIn’s request to transform the CFAA from a law meant to target serious computer break-ins into a tool for enforcing its computer use policies. The social networking giant wants violations of its corporate policy against using automated scripts to access public information on its website to count as felony “hacking” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal law meant to criminalize breaking into private computer systems to access non-public information. But using automated scripts to access publicly available data is not "hacking," and neither is violating a website’s terms of use. LinkedIn would have the court believe that all "bots" are bad, but they’re actually a common and necessary part of the Internet. "Good bots" were responsible for 23 percent of Web traffic in 2016..."

So, bots are here to stay. And, it's up to LinkedIn executives to find a solution to protect their users' information.

Fifth, according to the Reuters report the court judge suggested a solution for LinkedIn by "eliminating the public access option." Hmmmm. Public, or at least broad access, is what many job seekers desire. So, a balance needs to be struck between truly "public" where anyone, anywhere worldwide could access public profiles, versus intended targets (e.g., hiring executives in potential employers in certain industries).

Sixth, what struck me about the court ruling this week was that nobody was in the court room representing the interests of LinkedIn users, of which I am one. MediaPost reported:

"The appellate court discounted LinkedIn's argument that hiQ was harming users' privacy by scraping data even when people used a "do not broadcast" setting. "There is no evidence in the record to suggest that most people who select the 'Do Not Broadcast' option do so to prevent their employers from being alerted to profile changes made in anticipation of a job search," the judges wrote. "As the district court noted, there are other reasons why users may choose that option -- most notably, many users may simply wish to avoid sending their connections annoying notifications each time there is a profile change." "

What? Really?! We LinkedIn users have a natural, vested interest in control over both our profiles and the sensitive, personal information that describes each of us in our profiles. Somebody at LinkedIn failed to adequately represent users' interests of its users, the court didn't really listen closely nor seek out additional evidence, or all of the above.

Maybe the "there is no evidence in the record" regarding the 'Do Not Broadcast' feature will be the basis of another appeal or lawsuit.

With this latest court ruling, we LinkedIn users have totally lost control (except for deleting or suspending our LinkedIn accounts). It makes me wonder how a court could reach its decision without hearing directly from somebody representing LinkedIn users.

Seventh, it seems that LinkedIn needs to modify its platform in three key ways:

  1. Allow its users to specify which uses or applications (e.g., find fulltime work, find contract work, build contacts in my industry or area of expertise, find/screen job candidates, advertise/promote a business, academic research, publish content, read news, dating, etc.) their profiles can only be used for. The 'Do Not Broadcast' feature is clearly not strong enough;
  2. Allow its users to specify or approve individual users -- other actual persons who are LinkedIn users and not bots nor corporate accounts -- who can access their full, detailed profiles; and
  3. Outline in the user agreement the list of applications or uses profiles may be accessed for, so that both prospective and current LinkedIn users can make informed decisions. 

This would give LinkedIn users some control over the sensitive, personal information in their profiles. Without control, the benefits of using LinkedIn quickly diminish. And, that's enough to cause me to rethink my use of LinkedIn, and either deactivate or delete my account.

What are your opinions of this ruling? If you currently use LinkedIn, will you continue using it? If you don't use LinkedIn and were considering it, will you still consider using it?


New York State Strengthens Its Data Breach Laws

To help its residents, the State of New York has improved its existing data breach law. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed two bills on July 25th:

"The Governor signed the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security - or SHIELD - Act (S.5575B/A.5635), which imposes stronger obligations on businesses handling private data to provide proper notification to affected consumers when there is a security breach. The Governor also signed legislation (A.2374/S.3582) requiring consumer credit reporting agencies to offer identity theft prevention and mitigation services to consumers who have been affected by a security breach of the agency's system."

The Governor's announcement emphasized the importance of the state's laws keeping pace with rapid advances in technology. To address new technologies, the SHIELD Act will provide stronger protections by:

"1) Broadening the scope of information covered under the notification law to include biometric information and email addresses with their corresponding passwords or security questions and answers; 2) Updating the notification requirements and procedures that companies and state entities must follow when there has been a breach of private information; 3) Extending the notification requirement to any person or entity with private information of a New York resident, not just those who conduct business in New York State; 4) Expanding the definition of a data breach to include unauthorized access to private information; and 5) Creating reasonable data security requirements tailored to the size of a business."

The full text of the SHIELD Act legislation is available here. The SHIELD Act will go into effect on March 21, 2020. The announcement also mentioned Equifax:

"In late July 2017, one of the three main credit reporting agencies, Equifax Inc., experienced a major data breach involving personal information, including social security numbers... the company's response was insufficient and it is unacceptable that consumers were left to bear the burden to protect their own identities even though their information was stolen at no fault of their own. On July 22, 2019, Governor Cuomo, the State Department of Financial Services and State Attorney General James announced a $19.2 million settlement with Equifax over the data breach. As part of that settlement, Equifax agreed to provide New York consumers with credit monitoring services and free annual credit reports, and the company will pay restitution to consumers affected by the breach..."

So, it seems that Equifax's breach and data security failures factored into the new legislation. The announcement also explained the new Identity Theft Prevention and Mitigation Services (A.2374/S.3582) legislation:

This legislation establishes the minimal amount of long-term protections to consumers who are affected by a data breach from a credit reporting agency. It requires credit reporting agency that suffers a breach of information containing consumer social security numbers to provide five-year identity theft prevention services, and if applicable, identity theft mitigation services to affected customers. Additionally, the legislation requires credit reporting agencies to inform consumers on credit freezes of a breach of data involving a social security number, and provides consumers with the right to freeze their credit at no cost. The bill... applies to any breach of the security of a consumer credit reporting agency that occurred no more than three years prior to the effective date of this act."

The A.2374/S.3582 bill will go into effect on September 23, 2019. The retroactive coverage of three years is good as it ensures credit reporting agencies with recent data breaches cannot escape responsibility.

Consumer reporting agencies enjoy a unique position as consumers cannot opt out of having their credit reports covered by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. Some people would call that corporate welfare. It would be great if consumers had the right to remove their credit reports from credit reporting agencies that practice poor data security with repeated data breaches. Consumers have that right with retail stores -- you can stop shopping at stores with poor data security and multiple data breaches.

In related news, JD Supra reported about proposed legislation:

"... New York City lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make it unlawful for a mobile app developer or telecommunications carrier to share a customer’s location data without an authorized purpose if the data was collected from the customer’s device within the city. The bill broadly defines the term “share” as making “location data available to another person, whether for a fee or otherwise,” suggesting that selling information is unlawful without an authorized purpose such as customer consent. The bill allows for a private right of action, including penalties for violations of $1,000 per violation, with a maximum penalty of $10,000 per day per person whose location data was unlawfully shared, as well as attorney’s fees."

To learn more, read about new data breach legislation in other states this year.


At Least 3 Countries Warn Their Citizens About Travel To The USA

After several mass shooting incidents in the United States, several countries have issued travel warnings for their citizens visiting the United States. Fox 2 Now News in St. Louis reported:

"The Japanese Consul in Detroit on Sunday published an alert that said Japanese nationals "should be aware of the potential for gunfire incidents everywhere in the United States," which it described as "a gun society." Uruguay’s Office of Foreign Ministry issued an advisory Monday saying citizens should "take precaution amid the growing indiscriminatory violence, specifically hate crimes including racism and discrimination" when traveling to the United States. The alert noted that other factors, such as the "indiscriminate possession of firearms by the population" and the "impossibility of authorities to prevent these situations," were among some of the reasons... Uruguay’s warning also suggested avoiding the cities of Detroit, Baltimore and Albuquerque... Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry office also issued a warning to its residents Monday, saying Venezuelans should postpone their travels or exercise caution when traveling as a result of the events in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio... The statement from Venezuela cites a Forbes article listing these US cities as places to avoid: "Given all of the above, it is suggested above all to avoid visiting some cities that are among the 20 most dangerous in the world, such as Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; Oakland, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta Georgia; Stockton, and Buffalo." "

CNN reported:

"In April, the US State Department gave Venezuela its highest travel advisory, Level 4: Do Not Travel, citing crime, civil unrest and the arbitrary arrest and detention of US citizens. Venezuela was ranked as the most dangerous country in the world for the second straight year, according to a Gallup survey in 2018. It is one of 13 countries issued the highest advisory. Uruguay is listed as a Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution on the State Department's travel advisory."

These travel warnings by other countries cannot be good news for the tourism and travel industries in the USA. It makes one wonder how many jobs will be lost, or how many workers will be furloughed, as foreign travelers avoid visits to the USA.

And, this follows a January, 2018 report which found that, "since 2015, the U.S. and Turkey have been the only places among the top dozen global travel destinations to experience a decline in inbound visitors." So, the recent travel warnings are bad news on top of existing bad news.

What are your opinions? If you have heard of another country issuing warnings about travel to the USA, please share that below.


2 Healthcare Software Providers Agree To Settlement With 16 States' Attorneys General To Resolve Charges About 2015 Data Breach

The Attorney General's Office for the State of Arizona announced last month a major settlement agreement with two healthcare software providers: Medical Informatics Engineering Inc. and its subsidiary, NoMoreClipboard, LLC (hereafter, referred to jointly as "MIE") following a massive data breach at MIE in 2015.  The press release by AG Mike Brnovich stated:

"The settlement resolves a bipartisan lawsuit filed by Arizona and 15 other states against MIE relating to a 2015 data breach, which was the first such multistate lawsuit involving claims under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). As a result of the settlement, MIE will pay $900,000 to the states, and it has agreed to a comprehensive injunction requiring the implementation of significant data-security improvements."

Medical Informatics Engineering logo The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, where MIE is headquartered. States involved in the joint lawsuit and settlement included Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The data breach occurred between May 7, 2015, and May 26, 2015, when hackers broke into WebChart, a web application by MIE and stole:

"... the electronic Protected Health Information ("ePHI") of more than 3.9 million individuals, including roughly 26,000 Arizonans. Stolen ePHI included names, telephone numbers, mailing addresses, usernames, hashed passwords, security questions and answers, spousal information (name and potentially date of birth), email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, lab results, health insurance policy information, diagnoses, disability codes, doctors’ names, medical conditions, and children’s names and birth statistics."

The consent order and judgment is available here. Indiana’s share was $174,745.29. Indiana AG Curtis Hill said:

"Hoosier consumers trust us to look out for their interests... Once again, we have acted on their behalf to pursue the appropriate penalties and remedies available under the law. We hope our proactive measures serve to motivate all companies doing business in Indiana to exercise the highest possible ethics and the utmost diligence in making sure their systems are safe and secure."


Aggression Detectors: What They Are, Who Uses Them, And Why

Sound Intelligence logo Like most people, you probably have not heard of "aggression detectors." What are these devices? Who makes them? Who uses these devices and why? What consumers are affected?

To answer these questions, ProPublica explained who makes the devices and why:

"In response to mass shootings, some schools and hospitals are installing microphones equipped with algorithms. The devices purport to identify stress and anger before violence erupts... By deploying surveillance technology in public spaces like hallways and cafeterias, device makers and school officials hope to anticipate and prevent everything from mass shootings to underage smoking... Besides Sound Intelligence, South Korea-based Hanwha Techwin, formerly part of Samsung, makes a similar “scream detection” product that’s been installed in American schools. U.K.-based Audio Analytic used to sell its aggression- and gunshot-detection software to customers in Europe and the United States... Sound Intelligence CEO Derek van der Vorst said security cameras made by Sweden-based Axis Communications account for 90% of the detector’s worldwide sales, with privately held Louroe making up the other 10%... Mounted inconspicuously on the ceiling, Louroe’s smoke-detector-sized microphones measure aggression on a scale from zero to one. Users choose threshold settings. Any time they’re exceeded for long enough, the detector alerts the facility’s security apparatus, either through an existing surveillance system or a text message pinpointing the microphone that picked up the sound..."

Louroe Electronics logo The microphone-equipped sensors have been installed in a variety of industries. The Sound Intelligence website listed prisons, schools, public transportation, banks, healthcare institutes, retail stores, public spaces, and more. Louroe Electronics' site included a similar list plus law enforcement.

The ProPublica article also discussed several key issues. First, sensor accuracy and its own tests:

"... ProPublica’s analysis, as well as the experiences of some U.S. schools and hospitals that have used Sound Intelligence’s aggression detector, suggest that it can be less than reliable. At the heart of the device is what the company calls a machine learning algorithm. Our research found that it tends to equate aggression with rough, strained noises in a relatively high pitch, like [a student's] coughing. A 1994 YouTube clip of abrasive-sounding comedian Gilbert Gottfried ("Is it hot in here or am I crazy?") set off the detector, which analyzes sound but doesn’t take words or meaning into account... Sound Intelligence and Louroe said they prefer whenever possible to fine-tune sensors at each new customer’s location over a period of days or weeks..."

Second, accuracy concerns:

"[Sound Intelligence CEO] Van der Vorst acknowledged that the detector is imperfect and confirmed our finding that it registers rougher tones as aggressive. He said he “guarantees 100%” that the system will at times misconstrue innocent behavior. But he’s more concerned about failing to catch indicators of violence, and he said the system gives schools and other facilities a much-needed early warning system..."

This is interesting and troubling. Sound Intelligence's position seems to suggest that it is okay for sensor to miss-identify innocent persons as aggressive in order to avoid failures to identify truly aggressive persons seeking to do harm. That sounds like the old saying: the ends justify the means. Not good. The harms against innocent persons matters, especially when they are young students.

Yesterday's blog post described a far better corporate approach. Based upon current inaccuracies and biases with the technology, a police body camera assembled an ethics board to help guide its decisions regarding the technology; and then followed that board's recommendations not to implement facial recognition in its devices. When the inaccuracies and biases are resolved, then it would implement facial recognition.

What ethics boards have Sound Intelligence, Louroe, and other aggression detector makers utilized?

Third, the use of aggression detectors raises the issue of notice. Are there physical postings on-site at schools, hospitals, healthcare facilities, and other locations? Notice seems appropriate, especially since almost all entities provide notice (e.g., terms of service, privacy policy) for visitors to their websites.

Fourth, privacy concerns:

"Although a Louroe spokesman said the detector doesn’t intrude on student privacy because it only captures sound patterns deemed aggressive, its microphones allow administrators to record, replay and store those snippets of conversation indefinitely..."

I encourage parents of school-age children to read the entire ProPublica article. Concerned parents may demand explanations by school officials about the surveillance activities and devices used within their children's schools. Teachers may also be concerned. Patients at healthcare facilities may also be concerned.

Concerned persons may seek answers to several issues:

  • The vendor selection process, which aggression detector devices were selected, and why
  • Evidence supporting the accuracy of aggression detectors used
  • The school's/hospital's policy, if it has one, covering surveillance devices; plus any posted notices
  • The treatment and rights of wrongly identified persons (e.g., students, patients,, visitors, staff) by aggression detector devices
  • Approaches by the vendor and school to improve device accuracy for both types of errors: a) wrongly identified persons, and b) failures to identify truly aggressive or threatening persons
  • How long the school and/or vendor archive recorded conversations
  • What persons have access to the archived recordings
  • The data security methods used by the school and by the vendor to prevent unauthorized access and abuse of archived recordings
  • All entities, by name, which the school and/or vendor share archived recordings with

What are your opinions of aggression detectors? Of device inaccuracy? Of the privacy concerns?


Police Body Cam Maker Says It Won't Use Facial Recognition Due To Problems With The Technology

We've all heard of the following three technologies: police body cameras, artificial intelligence, and facial recognition software. Across the nation, some police departments use body cameras.

Do the three technologies go together -- work well together? The Washington Post reported:

"Axon, the country’s biggest seller of police body cameras, announced that it accepts the recommendation of an ethics board and will not use facial recognition in its devices... the company convened the independent board last year to assess the possible consequences and ethical costs of artificial intelligence and facial-recognition software. The board’s first report, published June 27, concluded that “face recognition technology is not currently reliable enough to ethically justify its use” — guidance that Axon plans to follow."

So, a major U.S. corporation assembled an ethics board to guide its activities. Good. That's not something you read about often. Then, the same corporation followed that board's advice. Even better.

Why reject using facial recognition with body cameras? Axon explained in a statement:

"Current face matching technology raises serious ethical concerns. In addition, there are technological limitations to using this technology on body cameras. Consistent with the board's recommendation, Axon will not be commercializing face matching products on our body cameras at this time. We do believe face matching technology deserves further research to better understand and solve for the key issues identified in the report, including evaluating ways to de-bias algorithms as the board recommends. Our AI team will continue to evaluate the state of face recognition technologies and will keep the board informed about our research..."

Two types of inaccuracies occur with facial recognition software: i) persons falsely identified (a/k/a "false positives;" and ii) persons not identified (a/k/a "false negatives) who should have been identified. The ethics board's report provided detailed explanations:

"The truth is that current technology does not perform as well on people of color compared to whites, on women compared to men, or young people compared to older people, to name a few disparities. These disparities exist in both directions — a greater false positive rate and false negative rate."

The ethics board's report also explained the problem of bias:

"One cause of these biases is statistically unrepresentative training data — the face images that engineers use to “train” the face recognition algorithm. These images are unrepresentative for a variety of reasons but in part because of decisions that have been made for decades that have prioritized certain groups at the cost of others. These disparities make real-world face recognition deployment a complete nonstarter for the Board. Until we have something approaching parity, this technology should remain on the shelf. Policing today already exhibits all manner of disparities (particularly racial). In this undeniable context, adding a tool that will exacerbate this disparity would be unacceptable..."

So, well-meaning software engineers can create bias in their algorithms by using sets of images that are not representative of the population. The ethic board's 42-page report titled, "First Report Of The Axon A.I. & Policing Technology Ethics Board" (Adobe PDF; 3.1 Megabytes) listed six general conclusions:

"1: Face recognition technology is not currently reliable enough to ethically justify its use on body-worn cameras. At the least, face recognition technology should not be deployed until the technology performs with far greater accuracy and performs equally well across races, ethnicities, genders, and other identity groups. Whether face recognition on body-worn cameras can ever be ethically justifiable is an issue the Board has begun to discuss in the context of the use cases outlined in Part IV.A, and will take up again if and when these prerequisites are met."

"2: When assessing face recognition algorithms, rather than talking about “accuracy,” we prefer to discuss false positive and false negative rates. Our tolerance for one or the other will depend on the use case."

"3: The Board is unwilling to endorse the development of face recognition technology of any sort that can be completely customized by the user. It strongly prefers a model in which the technologies that are made available are limited in what functions they can perform, so as to prevent misuse by law enforcement."

"4: No jurisdiction should adopt face recognition technology without going through open, transparent, democratic processes, with adequate opportunity for genuinely representative public analysis, input, and objection."

"5: Development of face recognition products should be premised on evidence-based benefits. Unless and until those benefits are clear, there is no need to discuss costs or adoption of any particular product."

"6: When assessing the costs and benefits of potential use cases, one must take into account both the realities of policing in America (and in other jurisdictions) and existing technological limitations."

The board included persons with legal, technology, law enforcement, and civil rights backgrounds; plus members from the affected communities. Axon management listened to the report's conclusions and is following the board's recommendations (emphasis added):

"Respond publicly to this report, including to the Board’s conclusions and recommendations regarding face recognition technology. Commit, based on the concerns raised by the Board, not to proceed with the development of face matching products, including adding such capabilities to body-worn cameras or to Axon Evidence (Evidence.com)... Invest company resources to work, in a transparent manner and in tandem with leading independent researchers, to ensure training data are statistically representative of the appropriate populations and that algorithms work equally well across different populations. Continue to comply with the Board’s Operating Principles, including by involving the Board in the earliest possible stages of new or anticipated products. Work with the Board to produce products and services designed to improve policing transparency and democratic accountability, including by developing products in ways that assure audit trails or that collect information that agencies can release to the public about their use of Axon products..."

Admirable. Encouraging. The Washington Post reported:

"San Francisco in May became the first U.S. city to ban city police and agencies from using facial-recognition software... Somerville, Massachusetts became the second, with other cities, including Berkeley and Oakland, Calif., considering similar measures..."

Clearly, this topic bears monitoring. Consumers and government officials are concerned about accuracy and bias. So, too, are some corporations.

And, more news seems likely. Will other technology companies and local governments utilize similar A.I. ethics boards? Will schools, healthcare facilities, and other customers of surveillance devices demand products with accuracy and without bias supported by evidence?


Digital Jail: How Electronic Monitoring Drives Defendants Into Debt

[Editor's note: today's guest post, by reporters at ProPublica, discusses the convergence of law enforcement, outsourcing, smart devices, surveillance, "offender funded" programs, and "e-gentrification." It is reprinted with permission.]

By Ava Kofman, ProPublica

On Oct. 12, 2018, Daehaun White walked free, or so he thought. A guard handed him shoelaces and the $19 that had been in his pocket at the time of his booking, along with a letter from his public defender. The lanky 19-year-old had been sitting for almost a month in St. Louis’ Medium Security Institution, a city jail known as the Workhouse, after being pulled over for driving some friends around in a stolen Chevy Cavalier. When the police charged him with tampering with a motor vehicle — driving a car without its owner’s consent — and held him overnight, he assumed he would be released by morning. He told the police that he hadn’t known that the Chevy, which a friend had lent him a few hours earlier, was stolen. He had no previous convictions. But the $1,500 he needed for the bond was far beyond what he or his family could afford. It wasn’t until his public defender, Erika Wurst, persuaded the judge to lower the amount to $500 cash, and a nonprofit fund, the Bail Project, paid it for him, that he was able to leave the notoriously grim jail. “Once they said I was getting released, I was so excited I stopped listening,” he told me recently. He would no longer have to drink water blackened with mold or share a cell with rats, mice and cockroaches. He did a round of victory pushups and gave away all of the snack cakes he had been saving from the cafeteria.

Emass logo When he finally read Wurst’s letter, however, he realized there was a catch. Even though Wurst had argued against it, the judge, Nicole Colbert-Botchway, had ordered him to wear an ankle monitor that would track his location at every moment using GPS. For as long as he would wear it, he would be required to pay $10 a day to a private company, Eastern Missouri Alternative Sentencing Services, or EMASS. Just to get the monitor attached, he would have to report to EMASS and pay $300 up front — enough to cover the first 25 days, plus a $50 installation fee.

White didn’t know how to find that kind of money. Before his arrest, he was earning minimum wage as a temp, wrapping up boxes of shampoo. His father was largely absent, and his mother, Lakisha Thompson, had recently lost her job as the housekeeping manager at a Holiday Inn. Raising Daehaun and his four siblings, she had struggled to keep up with the bills. The family bounced between houses and apartments in northern St. Louis County, where, as a result of Jim Crow redlining, most of the area’s black population lives. In 2014, they were living on Canfield Drive in Ferguson when Michael Brown was shot and killed there by a police officer. During the ensuing turmoil, Thompson moved the family to Green Bay, Wisconsin. White felt out of place. He was looked down on for his sagging pants, called the N-word when riding his bike. After six months, he moved back to St. Louis County on his own to live with three of his siblings and stepsiblings in a gray house with vinyl siding.

When White got home on the night of his release, he was so overwhelmed to see his family again that he forgot about the letter. He spent the next few days hanging out with his siblings, his mother, who had returned to Missouri earlier that year, and his girlfriend, Demetria, who was seven months pregnant. He didn’t report to EMASS.

What he didn’t realize was that he had failed to meet a deadline. Typically, defendants assigned to monitors must pay EMASS in person and have the device installed within 24 hours of their release from jail. Otherwise, they have to return to court to explain why they’ve violated the judge’s orders. White, however, wasn’t called back for a hearing. Instead, a week after he left the Workhouse, Colbert-Botchway issued a warrant for his arrest.

Three days later, a large group of police officers knocked on Thompson’s door, looking for information about an unrelated case, a robbery. White and his brother had been making dinner with their mother, and the officers asked them for identification. White’s name matched the warrant issued by Colbert-Botchway. “They didn’t tell me what the warrant was for,” he said. “Just that it was for a violation of my release.” He was taken downtown and held for transfer back to the Workhouse. “I kept saying to myself, ’Why am I locked up?’” he recalled.

The next morning, Thompson called the courthouse to find the answer. She learned that her son had been jailed over his failure to acquire and pay for his GPS monitor. To get him out, she needed to pay EMASS on his behalf.

This seemed absurd to her. When Daehaun was 13, she had worn an ankle monitor after violating probation for a minor theft, but the state hadn’t required her to cover the cost of her own supervision. “This is a 19-year-old coming out of the Workhouse,” she told me recently. “There’s no way he has $300 saved.” Thompson felt that the court was forcing her to choose between getting White out of jail and supporting the rest of her family.

Over the past half-century, the number of people behind bars in the United States jumped by more than 500%, to 2.2 million. This extraordinary rise, often attributed to decades of “tough on crime” policies and harsh sentencing laws, has ensured that even as crime rates have dropped since the 1990s, the number of people locked up and the average length of their stay have increased. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the cost of keeping people in jails and prisons soared to $87 billion in 2015 from $19 billion in 1980, in current dollars.

In recent years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have joined criminal-justice reformers in recognizing mass incarceration as both a moral outrage and a fiscal sinkhole. As ankle bracelets have become compact and cost-effective, legislators have embraced them as an enlightened alternative. More than 125,000 people in the criminal-justice system were supervised with monitors in 2015, compared with just 53,000 people in 2005, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Although no current national tally is available, data from several cities — Austin, Texas; Indianapolis; Chicago; and San Francisco — show that this number continues to rise. Last December, the First Step Act, which includes provisions for home detention, was signed into law by President Donald Trump with support from the private prison giants GEO Group and CoreCivic. These corporations dominate the so-called community-corrections market — services such as day-reporting and electronic monitoring — that represents one of the fastest-growing revenue sectors of their industry.

By far the most decisive factor promoting the expansion of monitors is the financial one. The United States government pays for monitors for some of those in the federal criminal-justice system and for tens of thousands of immigrants supervised by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But states and cities, which incur around 90% of the expenditures for jails and prisons, are increasingly passing the financial burden of the devices onto those who wear them. It costs St. Louis roughly $90 a day to detain a person awaiting trial in the Workhouse, where in 2017 the average stay was 291 days. When individuals pay EMASS $10 a day for their own supervision, it costs the city nothing. A 2014 study by NPR and the Brennan Center found that, with the exception of Hawaii, every state required people to pay at least part of the costs associated with GPS monitoring. Some probation offices and sheriffs run their own monitoring programs — renting the equipment from manufacturers, hiring staff and collecting fees directly from participants. Others have outsourced the supervision of defendants, parolees and probationers to private companies.

“There are a lot of judges who reflexively put people on monitors, without making much of a pretense of seriously weighing it at all,” said Chris Albin-Lackey, a senior legal adviser with Human Rights Watch who has researched private-supervision companies. “The limiting factor is the cost it might impose on the public, but when that expense is sourced out, even that minimal brake on judicial discretion goes out the window.”

Nowhere is the pressure to adopt monitors more pronounced than in places like St. Louis: cash-strapped municipalities with large populations of people awaiting trial. Nationwide on any given day, half a million people sit in crowded and expensive jails because, like Daehaun White, they cannot purchase their freedom.

As the movement to overhaul cash bail has challenged the constitutionality of jailing these defendants, judges and sheriffs have turned to monitors as an appealing substitute. In San Francisco, the number of people released from jail onto electronic monitors tripled after a 2018 ruling forced courts to release more defendants without bail. In Marion County, Indiana, where jail overcrowding is routine, roughly 5,000 defendants were put on monitors last year. “You would be hard-pressed to find bail-reform legislation in any state that does not include the possibility of electronic monitoring,” said Robin Steinberg, the chief executive of the Bail Project.

Yet like the system of wealth-based detention they are meant to help reform, ankle monitors often place poor people in special jeopardy. Across the country, defendants who have not been convicted of a crime are put on “offender funded” payment plans for monitors that sometimes cost more than their bail. And unlike bail, they don’t get the payment back, even if they’re found innocent. Although a federal survey shows that nearly 40% of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to cover an emergency, companies and courts routinely threaten to lock up defendants if they fall behind on payment. In Greenville, South Carolina, pretrial defendants can be sent back to jail when they fall three weeks behind on fees. (An officer for the Greenville County Detention Center defended this practice on the grounds that participants agree to the costs in advance.) In Mohave County, Arizona, pretrial defendants charged with sex offenses have faced rearrest if they fail to pay for their monitors, even if they prove that they can’t afford them. “We risk replacing an unjust cash-bail system,” Steinberg said, “with one just as unfair, inhumane and unnecessary.”

Many local judges, including in St. Louis, do not conduct hearings on a defendant’s ability to pay for private supervision before assigning them to it; those who do often overestimate poor people’s financial means. Without judicial oversight, defendants are vulnerable to private-supervision companies that set their own rates and charge interest when someone can’t pay up front. Some companies even give their employees bonuses for hitting collection targets.

It’s not only debt that can send defendants back to jail. People who may not otherwise be candidates for incarceration can be punished for breaking the lifestyle rules that come with the devices. A survey in California found that juveniles awaiting trial or on probation face especially difficult rules; in one county, juveniles on monitors were asked to follow more than 50 restrictions, including not participating “in any social activity.” For this reason, many advocates describe electronic monitoring as a “net-widener": Far from serving as an alternative to incarceration, it ends up sweeping more people into the system.

Dressed in a baggy yellow City of St. Louis Corrections shirt, White was walking to the van that would take him back to the Workhouse after his rearrest, when a guard called his name and handed him a bus ticket home. A few hours earlier, his mom had persuaded her sister to lend her the $300 that White owed EMASS. Wurst, his public defender, brought the receipt to court.

The next afternoon, White hitched a ride downtown to the EMASS office, where one of the company’s bond-compliance officers, Nick Buss, clipped a black box around his left ankle. Based in the majority white city of St. Charles, west of St. Louis, EMASS has several field offices throughout eastern Missouri. A former probation and parole officer, Michael Smith, founded the company in 1991 after Missouri became one of the first states to allow private companies to supervise some probationers. (Smith and other EMASS officials declined to comment for this story.)

The St. Louis area has made national headlines for its “offender funded” model of policing and punishment. Stricken by postindustrial decline and the 2008 financial crisis, its municipalities turned to their police departments and courts to make up for shortfalls in revenue. In 2015, the Ferguson Report by the United States Department of Justice put hard numbers to what black residents had long suspected: The police were targeting them with disproportionate arrests, traffic tickets and excessive fines.

EMASS may have saved the city some money, but it also created an extraordinary and arbitrary-seeming new expense for poor defendants. When cities cover the cost of monitoring, they often pay private contractors $2 to $3 a day for the same equipment and services for which EMASS charges defendants $10 a day. To come up with the money, EMASS clients told me, they had to find second jobs, take their children out of day care and cut into disability checks. Others hurried to plead guilty for no better reason than that being on probation was cheaper than paying for a monitor.

At the downtown office, White signed a contract stating that he would charge his monitor for an hour and a half each day and “report” to EMASS with $70 each week. He could shower, but was not to bathe or swim (the monitor is water-resistant, not waterproof). Interfering with the monitor’s functioning was a felony.

White assumed that GPS supervision would prove a minor annoyance. Instead, it was a constant burden. The box was bulky and the size of a fist, so he couldn’t hide it under his jeans. Whenever he left the house, people stared. There were snide comments ("nice bracelet") and cutting jokes. His brothers teased him about having a babysitter. “I’m nobody to watch,” he insisted.

The biggest problem was finding work. Confident and outgoing, White had never struggled to land jobs; after dropping out of high school in his junior year, he flipped burgers at McDonald’s and Steak ’n Shake. To pay for the monitor, he applied to be a custodian at Julia Davis Library, a cashier at Home Depot, a clerk at Menards. The conversation at Home Depot had gone especially well, White thought, until the interviewer casually asked what was on his leg.

To help improve his chances, he enrolled in Mission: St. Louis, a job-training center for people reentering society. One afternoon in January, he and a classmate role-played how to talk to potential employers about criminal charges. White didn’t know how much detail to go into. Should he tell interviewers that he was bringing his pregnant girlfriend some snacks when he was pulled over? He still isn’t sure, because a police officer came looking for him midway through the class. The battery on his monitor had died. The officer sent him home, and White missed the rest of the lesson.

With all of the restrictions and rules, keeping a job on a monitor can be as difficult as finding one. The hours for weekly check-ins at the downtown EMASS office — 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Mondays — are inconvenient for those who work. In 2011, the National Institute of Justice surveyed 5,000 people on electronic monitors and found that 22% said they had been fired or asked to leave a job because of the device. Juawanna Caves, a young St. Louis native and mother of two, was placed on a monitor in December after being charged with unlawful use of a weapon. She said she stopped showing up to work as a housekeeper when her co-workers made her uncomfortable by asking questions and later lost a job at a nursing home because too many exceptions had to be made for her court dates and EMASS check-ins.

Perpetual surveillance also takes a mental toll. Nearly everyone I spoke to who wore a monitor described feeling trapped, as though they were serving a sentence before they had even gone to trial. White was never really sure about what he could or couldn’t do under supervision. In January, when his girlfriend had their daughter, Rylan, White left the hospital shortly after the birth, under the impression that he had a midnight curfew. Later that night, he let his monitor die so that he could sneak back before sunrise to see the baby again.

EMASS makes its money from defendants. But it gets its power over them from judges. It was in 2012 that the judges of the St. Louis court started to use the company’s services — which previously involved people on probation for misdemeanors — for defendants awaiting trial. Last year, the company supervised 239 defendants in the city of St. Louis on GPS monitors, according to numbers provided by EMASS to the court. The alliance with the courts gives the company not just a steady stream of business but a reliable means of recouping debts: Unlike, say, a credit-card company, which must file a civil suit to collect from overdue customers, EMASS can initiate criminal-court proceedings, threatening defendants with another stay in the Workhouse.

In early April, I visited Judge Rex Burlison in his chambers on the 10th floor of the St. Louis civil courts building. A few months earlier, Burlison, who has short gray hair and light blue eyes, had been elected by his peers as presiding judge, overseeing the city’s docket, budget and operations, including the contract with EMASS. It was one of the first warm days of the year, and from the office window I could see sunlight glimmering on the silver Gateway Arch.

I asked Burlison about the court’s philosophy for using pretrial GPS. He stressed that while each case was unique and subject to the judge’s discretion, monitoring was most commonly used for defendants who posed a flight risk, endangered public safety or had an alleged victim. Judges vary in how often they order defendants to wear monitors, and critics have attacked the inconsistency. Colbert-Botchway, the judge who put White on a monitor, regularly made pretrial GPS a condition of release, according to public defenders. (Colbert-Botchway declined to comment.) But another St. Louis city judge, David Roither, told me, “I really don’t use it very often because people here are too poor to pay for it.”

Whenever a defendant on a monitor violates a condition of release, whether related to payment or a curfew or something else, EMASS sends a letter to the court. Last year, Burlison said, the court received two to three letters a week from EMASS about violations. In response, the judge usually calls the defendant in for a hearing. As far as he knew, Burlison said, judges did not incarcerate people simply for failing to pay EMASS debts. “Why would you?” he asked me. When people were put back in jail, he said, there were always other factors at play, like the defendant’s missing a hearing, for instance. (Issuing a warrant for White’s arrest without a hearing, he acknowledged after looking at the docket, was not the court’s standard practice.)

The contract with EMASS allows the court to assign indigent defendants to the company to oversee “at no cost.” Yet neither Burlison nor any of the other current or former judges I spoke with recalled waiving fees when ordering someone to wear an ankle monitor. When I asked Burlison why he didn’t, he said that he was concerned that if he started to make exceptions on the basis of income, the company might stop providing ankle-monitoring services in St. Louis.

“People get arrested because of life choices,” Burlison said. “Whether they’re good for the charge or not, they’re still arrested and have to deal with it, and part of dealing with it is the finances.” To release defendants without monitors simply because they can’t afford the fee, he said, would be to disregard the safety of their victims or the community. “We can’t just release everybody because they’re poor,” he continued.

But many people in the Workhouse awaiting trial are poor. In January, civil rights groups filed suit against the city and the court, claiming that the St. Louis bail system violated the Constitution, in part by discriminating against those who can’t afford to post bail. That same month, the Missouri Supreme Court announced new rules that urged local courts to consider releasing defendants without monetary conditions and to waive fees for poor people placed on monitors. Shortly before the rules went into effect, on July 1, Burlison said that the city intends to shift the way ankle monitors are distributed and plans to establish a fund to help indigent defendants pay for their ankle bracelets. But he said he didn’t know how much money would be in the fund or whether it was temporary or permanent. The need for funding could grow quickly. The pending bail lawsuit has temporarily spurred the release of more defendants from custody, and as a result, public defenders say, the demand for monitors has increased.

Judges are anxious about what people released without posting bail might do once they get out. Several told me that monitors may ensure that the defendants return to court. Not unlike doctors who order a battery of tests for a mildly ill patient to avoid a potential malpractice suit, judges seem to view monitors as a precaution against their faces appearing on the front page of the newspaper. “Every judge’s fear is to let somebody out on recognizance and he commits murder, and then everyone asks, ’How in the hell was this person let out?’” said Robert Dierker, who served as a judge in St. Louis from 1986 to 2017 and now represents the city in the bail lawsuit. “But with GPS, you can say, ’Well, I have him on GPS, what else can I do?’”

Critics of monitors contend that their public-safety appeal is illusory: If defendants are intent on harming someone or skipping town, the bracelet, which can be easily removed with a pair of scissors, would not stop them. Studies showing that people tracked by GPS appear in court more reliably are scarce, and research about its effectiveness as a deterrent is inconclusive.

“The fundamental question is, What purpose is electronic monitoring serving?” said Blake Strode, the executive director of ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit civil rights law firm in St. Louis that is one of several firms representing the plaintiffs in the bail lawsuit. “If the only purpose it’s serving is to make judges feel better because they don’t want to be on the hook if something goes wrong, then that’s not a sensible approach. We should not simply be monitoring for monitoring’s sake.”

Electronic monitoring was first conceived in the early 1960s by Ralph and Robert Gable, identical twins studying at Harvard under the psychologists Timothy Leary and B.F. Skinner, respectively. Influenced in part by Skinner’s theories of positive reinforcement, the Gables rigged up some surplus missile-tracking equipment to monitor teenagers on probation; those who showed up at the right places at the right times were rewarded with movie tickets, limo rides and other prizes.

Although this round-the-clock monitoring was intended as a tool for rehabilitation, observers and participants alike soon recognized its potential to enhance surveillance. All but two of the 16 volunteers in their initial study dropped out, finding the two bulky radio transmitters oppressive. “They felt like it was a prosthetic conscience, and who would want Mother all the time along with you?” Robert Gable told me. Psychology Today labeled the invention a “belt from Big Brother.”

The reality of electronic monitoring today is that Big Brother is watching some groups more than others. No national statistics are available on the racial breakdown of Americans wearing ankle monitors, but all indications suggest that mass supervision, like mass incarceration, disproportionately affects black people. In Cook County, Illinois, for instance, black people make up 24% of the population, and 67% of those on monitors. The sociologist Simone Browne has connected contemporary surveillance technologies like GPS monitors to America’s long history of controlling where black people live, move and work. In her 2015 book, “Dark Matters,” she traces the ways in which “surveillance is nothing new to black folks,” from the branding of enslaved people and the shackling of convict laborers to Jim Crow segregation and the home visits of welfare agencies. These historical inequities, Browne notes, influence where and on whom new tools like ankle monitors are imposed.

For some black families, including White’s, monitoring stretches across generations. Annette Taylor, the director of Ripple Effect, an advocacy group for prisoners and their families based in Champaign, Illinois, has seen her ex-husband, brother, son, nephew and sister’s husband wear ankle monitors over the years. She had to wear one herself, about a decade ago, she said, for driving with a suspended license. “You’re making people a prisoner of their home,” she told me. When her son was paroled and placed on house arrest, he couldn’t live with her, because he was forbidden to associate with people convicted of felonies, including his stepfather, who was also on house arrest.

Some people on monitors are further constrained by geographic restrictions — areas in the city or neighborhood that they can’t go without triggering an alarm. James Kilgore, a research scholar at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, has cautioned that these exclusionary zones could lead to “e-gentrification,” effectively keeping people out of more-prosperous neighborhoods. In 2016, after serving four years in prison for drug conspiracy, Bryan Otero wore a monitor as a condition of parole. He commuted from the Bronx to jobs at a restaurant and a department store in Manhattan, but he couldn’t visit his family or doctor because he was forbidden to enter a swath of Manhattan between 117th Street and 131st Street. “All my family and childhood friends live in that area,” he said. “I grew up there.”

Michelle Alexander, a legal scholar and columnist for The Times, has argued that monitoring engenders a new form of oppression under the guise of progress. In her 2010 book, “The New Jim Crow,” she wrote that the term “mass incarceration” should refer to the “system that locks people not only behind actual bars in actual prisons, but also behind virtual bars and virtual walls — walls that are invisible to the naked eye but function nearly as effectively as Jim Crow laws once did at locking people of color into a permanent second-class citizenship.”

BI Incorporated logo As the cost of monitoring continues to fall, those who are required to submit to it may worry less about the expense and more about the intrusive surveillance. The devices, some of which are equipped with two-way microphones, can give corrections officials unprecedented access to the private lives not just of those monitored but also of their families and friends. GPS location data appeals to the police, who can use it to investigate crimes. Already the goal is both to track what individuals are doing and to anticipate what they might do next. BI Incorporated, an electronic-monitoring subsidiary of GEO Group, has the ability to assign risk scores to the behavioral patterns of those monitored, so that law enforcement can “address potential problems before they happen.” Judges leery of recidivism have begun to embrace risk-assessment tools. As a result, defendants who have yet to be convicted of an offense in court may be categorized by their future chances of reoffending.

The combination of GPS location data with other tracking technologies such as automatic license-plate readers represents an uncharted frontier for finer-grained surveillance. In some cities, police have concentrated these tools in neighborhoods of color. A CityLab investigation found that Baltimore police were more likely to deploy the Stingray — the controversial and secretive cellphone tracking technology — where African Americans lived. In the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death in 2015, the police spied on Black Lives Matter protesters with face recognition technology. Given this pattern, the term “electronic monitoring” may soon refer not just to a specific piece of equipment but to an all-encompassing strategy.

If the evolution of the criminal-justice system is any guide, it is very likely that the ankle bracelet will go out of fashion. Some GPS monitoring vendors have already started to offer smartphone applications that verify someone’s location through voice and face recognition. These apps, with names like Smart-LINK and Shadowtrack, promise to be cheaper and more convenient than a boxy bracelet. They’re also less visible, mitigating the stigma and normalizing surveillance. While reducing the number of people in physical prison, these seductive applications could, paradoxically, increase its reach. For the nearly 4.5 million Americans on probation or parole, it is not difficult to imagine a virtual prison system as ubiquitous — and invasive — as Instagram or Facebook.

On January 24, exactly three months after White had his monitor installed, his public defender successfully argued in court for its removal. His phone service had been shut off because he had fallen behind on the bill, so his mother told him the good news over video chat.

When White showed up to EMASS a few days later to have the ankle bracelet removed, he said, one of the company’s employees told him that he couldn’t take off his monitor until he paid his debt. White offered him the $35 in his wallet — all the money he had. It wasn’t enough. The employee explained that he needed to pay at least half of the $700 he owed. Somewhere in the contract he had signed months earlier, White had agreed to pay his full balance “at the time of removal.” But as White saw it, the court that had ordered the monitor’s installation was now ordering its removal. Didn’t that count?

“That’s the only thing that’s killing me,” White told me a few weeks later, in early March. “Why are you all not taking it off?” We were in his brother’s room, which, unlike White’s down the hall, had space for a wobbly chair. White sat on the bed, his head resting against the frame, while his brother sat on the other end by the TV, mumbling commands into a headset for the fantasy video game Fortnite. By then, the prosecutor had offered White two to three years of probation in exchange for a plea. (White is waiting to hear if he has been accepted into the city’s diversion program for “youthful offenders,” which would allow him to avoid pleading and wipe the charges from his record in a year.)

White was wearing a loosefitting Nike track jacket and red sweats that bunched up over the top of his monitor. He had recently stopped charging it, and so far, the police hadn’t come knocking. “I don’t even have to have it on,” he said, looking down at his ankle. “But without a job, I can’t get it taken off.” In the last few weeks, he had sold his laptop, his phone and his TV. That cash went to rent, food and his daughter, and what was left barely made a dent in what he owed EMASS.

It was a Monday — a check-in day — but he hadn’t been reporting for the past couple of weeks. He didn’t see the point; he didn’t have the money to get the monitor removed and the office was an hour away by bus. I offered him a ride.

EMASS check-ins take place in a three-story brick building with a low-slung facade draped in ivy. The office doesn’t take cash payments, and a Western Union is conveniently located next door. The other men in the waiting room were also wearing monitors. When it was White’s turn to check-in, Buss, the bond-compliance officer, unclipped the band from his ankle and threw the device into a bin, White said. He wasn’t sure why EMASS had now softened its approach, but his debts nonetheless remained.

Buss calculated the money White owed going back to November: $755, plus 10% annual interest. Over the next nine months, EMASS expected him to make monthly payments that would add up to $850 — more than the court had required for his bond. White looked at the receipt and shook his head. “I get in trouble for living,” he said as he walked out of the office. “For being me.”

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.


Fracking Companies Lost on Trespassing, but a Court Just Gave Them a Different Win

[Editor's note: today's guest post by ProPublica discusses business practices within the fracking industry. It is reprinted with permission.]

By Ken Ward Jr., The Charleston Gazette-Mail

A week after the West Virginia Supreme Court unanimously upheld the property rights of landowners battling one natural gas giant, the same court tossed out a challenge filed by another group of landowners against a different natural gas company.

In the latest case, decided earlier this month, the court upheld a lower court ruling that threw out a collection of lawsuits alleging dust, traffic and noise from gas operations were creating a nuisance for nearby landowners.

Charlie Burd, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, said the latest ruling lets “Wall Street know capital investment in oil and natural gas is welcome in West Virginia” and increases the possibility of more such investments in drilling and in so-called “downstream” chemical and manufacturing plants related to the gas industry.

In the property rights case last week, the justices set a clear legal standard that natural gas companies can’t trespass on a person’s land, without permission, to tap into gas reserves from neighboring tracts. In Monday’s case, the justices didn’t articulate a new legal precedent.

The mixed messages of the two cases show that “this is new litigation and the theories are evolving,” said Anthony Majestro, a lawyer who represented residents who lost their nuisance action before the Supreme Court.

“As the Marcellus shale drilling has expanded, there have been conflicts between surface owners and the companies that are drilling,” Majestro said. “Absent some legal requirement to require the industry to be good neighbors, I’m afraid we’ll continue to have these situations.”

Majestro’s clients were a group of residents in the Cherry Camp area of Harrison County, in north-central West Virginia. They wanted Antero Resources, the state’s largest gas company, to compensate them for unbearable traffic, “constant dust” that hangs in the air and settles on homes and vehicles, disruptive heavy equipment noise and bright lights that shine into their homes day and night.

The case focused on two dozen wells and a compressor station on six pads. The plaintiffs argued that their lives were being interfered with by Antero’s production of gas from beneath their property, even though the wells were on neighboring land, not on their own properties.

Across West Virginia’s gas-producing region, many residents own the surface of the land where they live, but don’t hold the minerals located beneath. Often, rights to the natural gas were signed over decades ago, long before drilling and gas production of the size and scope now conducted was even dreamed of.

The two court cases were featured last year as part of a series of stories by the Gazette-Mail and ProPublica that explored the impacts of the growth of natural gas on West Virginia communities.

In some ways, the Antero case was more complex than the earlier matter, in which the state court ruled clearly for Doddridge County residents Beth Crowder and David Wentz in their dispute with EQT Corp., West Virginia’s second-largest gas producer.

EQT had built a well pad and pipelines on Crowder and Wentz’s property to reach natural gas not located beneath their farm, but under neighboring tracts, including some that were thousands of feet away. Modern natural gas drilling uses horizontal drilling to use smaller numbers of larger wells to reach much greater amounts of gas.

Justice John Hutchison wrote the court’s 5-0 decision against EQT, including a new point of law that sets a precedent that calls what the company did trespassing and forbids it from being done in the future.

The ruling in the Antero case was a split, 3-2 decision, and the opinion by Justice Evan Jenkins included no new points of law setting precedent for future cases.

Instead, his opinion was based on the view that Antero had gas leases that created a right for it to do whatever was “reasonably necessary” to get at its mineral holdings.

Antero spokeswoman Stephanie Iaquinta said, “We appreciate the court’s thorough review of this important matter and its decision.”

Chief Justice Beth Walker wrote a concurring opinion, pointing out that the majority decision wasn’t necessarily getting to the heart of the matter: whether the kinds of gas industry impacts complained about by the Harrison County residents constitute a legal nuisance.

And Justice Margaret Workman wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying that the court had not only ducked the central legal issue in the case, but that it had usurped the authority of a jury to decide if the facts of how Antero operates should be deemed to be “reasonably necessary” to produce natural gas.

“For a century, the tenor of our mineral easement case law, in each temporal and technological ideation, has been that there must be a balance of the rights of surface owners and mineral owners,” Workman wrote. “Rather than making any attempt to establish legal guidance for that goal in this new context, the majority endorses a gross inequity that effectively gives this new industrialization carte blanche to operate without any regard for the rights of those who live on the land.”

Filed under:

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

 


Several States Strengthened Their Data Breach Notification Laws in 2019

Legislatures in several states are improving their existing data breach notification laws to provide stronger protections for consumers.

To fully appreciate the changes requires an understanding of the current legal status. The National Conference of State Legislatures summarized the current status:

"All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have enacted legislation requiring private or governmental entities to notify individuals of security breaches of information involving personally identifiable information. Security breach laws typically have provisions regarding who must comply with the law (e.g., businesses, data/information brokers, government entities, etc.); definitions of “personal information” (e.g., name combined with SSN, drivers license or state ID, account numbers, etc.); what constitutes a breach (e.g., unauthorized acquisition of data); requirements for notice (e.g., timing or method of notice, who must be notified); and exemptions (e.g., for encrypted information)."

The increased legislative activity comes in the aftermath of the massive Equifax breach in 2017 affecting 145.5 million persons. 2018 was a terrible year with more than one billion consumer accounts affected by multiple data breaches.

Many of the improvements across states requires sooner notice to affected persons, so consumers can check their bank/card statements for fraudulent activity, and take other security actions. Without sooner notice, fraud can perpetuate with more money stolen.

Now, the legislative activity in selected states.

First, legislators amended the requirements in the Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA), or House Bill 1154. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan approved of the changes, which will go into effect on October 1, 2019. A summary of the changes:

  • Requires businesses that own or license "computerized data that includes personal information of an individual residing in the State" to conduct a good-faith breach investigation to determine data abuse when they discover or are notified of a data breach,
  • Requires notification of affected persons within 45 days, and
  • Requires businesses to maintain records of the breach for three years of its breach investigation and determination that notification of affected persons is not required.

Second, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed legislation in January which went into effect on April 11, 2019. Changes in the new law: no fees for consumers to place, lift, or remove Security Freezes; credit monitoring required when Social Security numbers disclosed during the breach; and an expanded list of requirements when businesses provide notice to the Massachusetts Attorney General and to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR).

Third, New Jersey amended its breach law. SC Magazine summarized the changes:

"The new law expands the definition of what constitutes personal information that, if exposed in a breach, would require a company to issue a notification. Once S-52 takes effect on Sept. 1, 2019, personal information will also include a “user name, email address, or any other account holder identifying information, in combination with any password or security questions and answer…” the law states."

Fourth, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law Senate Bill 684 on May 24, 2019. The JD Supra site reported:

"The most significant changes are around service providers, who will take on an independent obligation to notify the state Attorney General (AG) about data security breaches. A handful of other, more subtle changes are also included in the amendments, which take effect January 1, 2020... The obligation that service providers notify the AG is triggered by breaches affecting the personal information of over 250 Oregon consumers, or when the number cannot be determined... The new obligation increases the number of parties involved in incident response and notice decisions... This round of amendments adds user names, combined with password or other means of authentication, to the list of notice-triggering personal information... One other amendment also touches service providers. Where previously service providers had to notify business customers “as soon as practicable” after discovering a breach, the amendments set a deadline of 10 days."

Many companies outsource back-office work to vendors. So, the Oregon law keeps pace with common business practices. Readers wanting to learn more can read this blog's Outsourcing section.

A new, separate bill in Oregon covers internet-connected devices, also called the Internet of Things (IoT). Many consumers have installed IoT devices in their homes. According to JD Supra:

"The Oregon connected device security law is largely consistent with California’s new connected device security law, and both take effect January 1, 2020. Both require that manufacturers equip IoT devices with reasonable security features. Under either statute that can mean setting unique passwords for each unit shipped, or requiring end users to set a new password when they first access the device, in order to access the devices remotely from outside the devices’ local area network. This is a floor, not a ceiling, and both laws leave room for other security features..."

When manufacturers sell IoT devices all configured with the same universal password, it is a huge security problem. Bad actors can remotely access consumers' IoT devices to commit identity theft, fraud, and more. Consumers require greater protection, and the new IoT law is a good first step. Readers wanting to learn more can read this blog's Internet of Things section.

Fifth, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed signed HB 1071 on May 7) which expanded the state’s data breach notification law. The changes become effective March 1, 2020. The National Law Review reported that breach:

"... notices must be provided no more than thirty days after the organization discovers the breach. This applies to notices sent to affected consumers as well as to the state’s Attorney General. The threshold requirement for notice to the Attorney General remains the same—it is only required if 500 or more Washington residents were affected by the breach."

The new law in Washington also expanded the list of sensitive data elements comprising "personal information" when combined with a person's name: birth date; "unique private key used to authenticate" electronic records; passport, military, and student ID numbers; health insurance policy or identification number; medical history, health conditions, diagnoses, and treatments; and biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, retina scans, voiceprints, etc.).

As more states announce amended breach notification laws, this blog will cover those actions.


Leading Manufacturer Reverses Its Position on Paperless Voting Machines

A leading manufacturer of electronic voting machines has reversed its position on election security. Tom Burt, the CEO of Election Systems & Software (ES&S), said his company will no longer sell paperless voting machines. Mr Burt wrote in Roll Call:

"... we must have physical paper records of votes. Our company, Election Systems & Software, the nation’s leading elections equipment provider, recently decided it will no longer sell paperless voting machines as the primary voting device in a jurisdiction. That’s because it is difficult to perform a meaningful audit without a paper record of each voter’s selections. Mandating the use of a physical paper record sets the stage for all jurisdictions to perform statistically valid post-election audits."

A 2017 study by researchers found 11 states where the majority of voters use paperless voting machines that store votes electronically -- without printed ballots or other paper-based backups to double-check the balloting. A report in March, 2018 by the Brennan Center For Justice found little progress since 2016 to replace old, vulnerable voting machines in the United States.

In his comments, Burt called upon Congress to act to improve the testing of voting machines. Burt also cited the challenges. First:

"There are about 10,000 jurisdictions in America that manage nearly 117,000 polling locations and utilize more than 560,000 voting machines (manufactured by multiple suppliers) on Election Day. That’s what you call a highly distributed and differentiated infrastructure..."

Second, jurisdictions have varying financial resources. Besides testing, it will cost money to replace obsolete and paperless voting machines. TechCrunch provided important context to Burt's comments:

"Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill a year ago that would mandate voter-verified paper ballots for all election machines... Burt’s remarks are a sharp turnaround from the company’s position just a year ago, in which the election systems maker drew ire from the security community for denouncing vulnerabilities found by hackers at the annual Defcon conference. Security researchers at the conference’s Voting Village found a security flaw in an old but widely used voting machine in dozens of states. Their findings prompted a response by senior lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee..."

So, the change in position by ES&S is a small start (and arguably late). What matters more will be action by ES&S and other voting-machine makers; and action by Congress.

Since a democracy relies upon elections, voting machine upgrades and testing could be considered an infrastructure issue. Both Congress and voting machine makers need to do their jobs. What are your opinions?


Court to Big Fracking Company: Trespassing Still Exists — Even For You

[Editor's note: today's guest post by ProPublica discusses business practices within the fracking industry. It is reprinted with permission. Readers may also be interested in this blog post from February.]

By Kate Mishkin and Ken Ward Jr., The Charleston Gazette-Mail

Seven years ago this month, Beth Crowder and David Wentz told natural gas giant EQT Corp. that it did not have permission to come onto their West Virginia farm to drill for the natural gas beneath neighboring properties.

EQT Corporation logo EQT had a lease that entitled the company to the gas directly beneath their farm, but it also wanted to use a new, 20-acre well pad to gather gas from 3,000 acres of adjacent or nearby leases. The company ignored their warnings. It built roads and drilled a well, and it put in horizontal pipes stretching for miles in all directions.

Crowder and Wentz sued — and they’ve been fighting EQT in court ever since. On Wednesday, the West Virginia Supreme Court ended the matter with a surprisingly straightforward and unanimous conclusion: Going onto someone else’s land without their permission is trespassing.

Gas and other mineral companies must obtain permission from surface owners in order to use their land to reach reserves under other properties, Justice John Hutchison wrote for the court. "The right must be expressly obtained, addressed, or reserved in the parties’ deeds, leases, or other writings," he wrote.

Attorney Dave McMahon, who represented Crowder and Wentz, broke the news to them by phone. "The short answer is, we won. And we won big time," he said.

On the other end of the line in Doddridge County, Crowder and Wentz shouted and laughed. "I think I’m feeling kind of numb," Crowder said. "I’ve been used to being in limbo forever."

Kristina Whiteaker, another lawyer for Crowder and Wentz, told them, "You guys really made some good law for the whole state."

EQT said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon that the company was "disappointed in the court’s ruling” but didn’t “expect the decision to have a significant impact on our operations in West Virginia."

"We intend to maintain cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with our customers, our partners, and residents in the regions where we do business," EQT said.

The West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association, an industry trade association, said it is analyzing the ruling to determine how it may impact its member companies.

In a statement, Charlie Burd, the executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, said the industry group would have preferred a ruling that encouraged horizontal drilling, but planned to comply with it. “IOGAWV members like to have good relationships with property owners,” Burd said.

Crowder and Wentz’s saga was chronicled last year by the Gazette-Mail and ProPublica, in an investigation that detailed how the natural gas industry had gained an upper hand on the state’s residents.

The 22-page court ruling Wednesday represents a rare victory for residents in a state where economics and politics are increasingly controlled by the natural gas business after decades of domination by the coal industry. Making it more gratifying for Crowder and Wentz, the court that ruled in their favor has been under the microscope because of connections to the gas industry.

Much of the land in mineral-producing parts of West Virginia has split ownership. Someone might own the surface land, while someone else owns the coal, oil or gas underneath. Gas is generally produced under leases, in which gas owners or their ancestors granted a production company the right to drill. But often, the leases are so old the current owners didn’t sign them, and certainly the advanced types of gas-production techniques used today were not anticipated.

Compounding the matter, gas producers now use a process called hydraulic fracturing, which pumps huge amounts of water and chemicals underground to loosen up gas reserves, and drill extensive horizontal holes to suck in gas from much wider areas. They bring in fleets of heavy trucks and install tanks and pipelines. The entire process has brought an influx of vibrations, noise and traffic. Though bills have been introduced year after year that are designed to mitigate the impacts on residents, West Virginia lawmakers have repeatedly refused to act.

Crowder and Wentz moved to their 300-acre farm on Brush Run in 1975, part of the “back-to-the-land” movement, seeking to live simply and be left alone. They divorced in 2005 and split the land, but both still live there on separate tracts.

There had been small gas wells on the property for years, but they were nothing like the noise, traffic and disturbance that EQT brought with it when it drilled nine new wells that would take in gas through nearly 10 miles of underground bores.

In February 2016, a local judge ruled that EQT had trespassed, and in September 2017, a jury awarded Crowder and Wentz about $200,000 in damages. EQT appealed.

The case is one of two major gas property-rights and drilling cases this term in which the industry is pressing for rulings that support its current method and scope of operations.

In the other case heard before the West Virginia Supreme Court in January, Harrison County residents said Antero Resources’ operations were creating a nuisance. A ruling on that hasn’t been issued yet.

At the heart of these cases is the fact that, economically and technologically, gas production today is all about what industry officials call “laterals.” These horizontal holes are drilled out in all directions from a vertical well. They can pull in natural gas from several miles away.

Industry officials say horizontal drilling allows them to minimize environmental impacts by building one well pad for multiple wells. But in doing so, it has magnified the impact for those residents who happen to live near — or on — the tracts chosen for those pads.

The Independent Oil and Gas Association had warned in a court brief that a ruling against EQT in the case would have “significant negative implications upon future and existing natural gas development in West Virginia.” EQT lawyers made similar warnings at trial.

Joshua Fershee, a West Virginia University law professor who has followed the case, said that the court’s decision won’t stop gas drilling. It will, however, make it more expensive for companies to secure the needed rights.

In concluding the court’s opinion, Hutchison said the justices didn’t aim to “challenge or constrain the drilling methods chosen by the oil and gas industry.”

“The industry has shown that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques are evolving at a rapid pace and are an economical and efficient tool for producing hydrocarbons,” Hutchison wrote. “Our opinion only affirms a classical rule of property jurisprudence: it is trespassing to go on someone’s land without the right to do so.”

Filed under:

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

 


New Vermont Law Regulating Data Brokers Drives 120 Businesses From The Shadows

In May of 2018, Vermont was the first (and only) state in the nation to enact a law regulating data brokers. According to the Vermont Secretary of State, a data broker is defined as:

"... a business, or unit or units of a business, separately or together, that knowingly collects and sells or licenses to third parties the brokered personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship."

The Vermont Secretary of State's website contains links to the new law and more. This new law is important for several reasons. First, many businesses operate as data brokers. Second, consumers historically haven't known who has information about them, nor how to review their profiles for accuracy. Third,  consumers haven't been able to opt out of the data collection. Fourth, if you don't know who the data brokers are, then you can't hold them accountable if they fail with data security. According to Vermont law:

"2447. Data broker duty to protect information; standards; technical requirements (a) Duty to protect personally identifiable information. (1) A data broker shall develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that is written in one or more readily accessible parts and contains administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that are appropriate... identification and assessment of reasonably foreseeable internal and external risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of any electronic, paper, or other records containing personally identifiable information, and a process for evaluating and improving, where necessary, the effectiveness of the current safeguards for limiting such risks... taking reasonable steps to select and retain third-party service providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate security measures to protect personally identifiable information consistent with applicable law; and (B) requiring third-party service providers by contract to implement and maintain appropriate security measures for personally identifiable information..."

Before this law, there was little to no oversight, no regulation, and no responsibility for data brokers to adequately protect sensitive data about consumers. A federal bill proposed in 2014 went nowhere in the U.S. Senate. You can assume that many data brokers operate in your state, too, since there's plenty of money to be made in the industry.

Portions of the new Vermont law went into effect in May, and the remainder went into effect on January 1, 2019. What has happened since then? Fast Company reported:

"So far, 121 companies have registered, according to data from the Vermont secretary of state’s office... The list of active companies includes divisions of the consumer data giant Experian, online people search engines like Spokeo and Spy Dialer, and a variety of lesser-known organizations that do everything from help landlords research potential tenants to deliver marketing leads to the insurance industry..."

The Fast Company site lists the 120 (so far) registered data brokers in Vermont. Regular readers of this blog will recognize some of the data brokers by name, since prior posts covered Acxiom, Equifax, Experian, LexisNexis, the NCTUE, Oracle, Spokeo, TransUnion, and others. (Yes, both credit reporting agencies and social media firms also operate as data brokers. Some states do it, too.) Reportedly, many privacy advocates support the new law:

"There’s companies that I’ve never heard of before," says Zachary Tomanelli, communications and technology director at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which supported the law. "It’s often very cumbersome [for consumers] to know where the places are that you have to go, and how you opt out."

Predictably, the industry has opposed (and continues to oppose) the legislation:

"A coalition of industry groups like the Internet Association, the Association of National Advertisers, and the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, as well as now registered data brokers such as Experian, Acxiom, and IHS Markit, said the law was unnecessary... Requiring companies to disclose breaches of largely public data could be burdensome for businesses and needlessly alarming for consumers, they argue... Other companies, like Axciom, have complained that the law establishes inconsistent boundaries around personal data used by third parties, and the first-party data used by companies like Facebook and Google."

So, no companies want consumers to own and control the data -- property -- that describes them. Real property laws matter. To learn more, read about data brokers at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse site. Related posts in the Data Brokers section of this blog:

Kudos to Vermont lawmakers for ensuring more disclosures and transparency from the industry. Readers may ask their elected officials why their state has not taken similar action. What are your opinions of the new Vermont law?


Brave Alerts FTC On Threats From Business Practices With Big Data

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held a "Privacy, Big Data, And Competition" hearing on November 6-8, 2018 as part of its "Competition And Consumer Protection in the 21st Century" series of discussions. During that session, the FTC asked for input on several topics:

  1. "What is “big data”? Is there an important technical or policy distinction to be drawn between data and big data?
  2. How have developments involving data – data resources, analytic tools, technology, and business models – changed the understanding and use of personal or commercial information or sensitive data?
  3. Does the importance of data – or large, complex data sets comprising personal or commercial information – in a firm’s ordinary course operations change how the FTC should analyze mergers or firm conduct? If so, how? Does data differ in importance from other assets in assessing firm or industry conduct?
  4. What structural, behavioral or conduct remedies should the FTC consider when remedying antitrust harm in a market or industry where data or personal or commercial information are a significant product or a key competitive input?
  5. Are there policy recommendations that would facilitate competition in markets involving data or personal or commercial information that the FTC should consider?
  6. Do the presence of personal information or privacy concerns inform or change competition analysis?
  7. How do state, federal, and international privacy laws and regulations, adopted to protect data and consumers, affect competition, innovation, and product offerings in the United States and abroad?"

Brave, the developer of a web browser, submitted comments to the FTC which highlighted two concerns:

"First, big tech companies “cross-use” user data from one part of their business to prop up others. This stifles competition, and hurts innovation and consumer choice. Brave suggests that FTC should investigate. Second, the GDPR is emerging as a de facto international standard. Whether this helps or harms United States firms will be determined by whether the United States enacts and actively enforces robust federal privacy laws."

A letter by Dr. Johnny Ryan, the Chief Policy & Industry Relations Officer at Brave, described in detail the company's concerns:

"The cross-use and offensive leveraging of personal information from one line of business to another is likely to have anti-competitive effects. Indeed anti-competitive practices may be inevitable when companies with Google’s degree of market dominance update their privacy policies to include the cross-use of personal information. The result is that a company can leverage all the personal information accumulated from its users in one line of business to dominate other lines of business too. Rather than competing on the merits, the company can enjoy the unfair advantage of massive network effects... The result is that nascent and potential competitors will be stifled, and consumer choice will be limited... The cross-use of data between different lines of business is analogous to the tying of two products. Indeed, tying and cross-use of data can occur at the same time, as Google Chrome’s latest “auto sign in to everything” controversy illustrates..."

Historically, Google let Chrome web browser users decide whether or not to sign in for cross-device usage. The Chrome 69 update forced auto sign-in, but a Chrome 70 update restored users' choice after numerous complaints and criticism.

Regarding topic #7 by the FTC, Brave's response said:

"A de facto international standard appears to be emerging, based on the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)... the application of GDPR-like laws for commercial use of consumers’ personal data in the EU, Britain (post EU), Japan, India, Brazil, South Korea, Malaysia, Argentina, and China bring more than half of global GDP under a common standard. Whether this emerging standard helps or harms United States firms will be determined by whether the United States enacts and actively enforces robust federal privacy laws. Unless there is a federal GDPR-like law in the United States, there may be a degree of friction and the potential of isolation for United States companies... there is an opportunity in this trend. The United States can assume the global lead by adopting the emerging GDPR standard, and by investing in world-leading regulation that pursues test cases, and defines practical standards..."

Currently, companies collect, archive, share, and sell consumers' personal information at will -- often without notice nor consent. While all 50 states and territories have breach notification laws, most states have not upgraded their breach notification laws to include biometric and passport data. While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the federal law which governs healthcare data and related breaches, many consumers share health data with social media sites -- robbing themselves of HIPAA protections.

Moreover, it's an unregulated free-for-all of data collection, archiving, and sharing by telecommunications companies after the revoking in 2017 of broadband privacy protections for consumers in the USA. Plus, laws have historically focused upon "declared data" (e.g., the data users upload or submit into websites or apps) while ignoring "inferred data" -- which is arguably just as sensitive and revealing.

Regarding future federal privacy legislation, Brave added:

"... The GDPR is compatible with a United States view of consumer protection and privacy principles. Indeed, the FTC has proposed important privacy protections to legislators in 2009, and again in 2012 and 2014, which ended up being incorporated in the GDPR. The high-level principles of the GDPR are closely aligned, and often identical to, the United States’ privacy principles... The GDPR also incorporates principles endorsed by the U.S. in the 1980 OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data; and the principles endorsed by the United States this year, in Article 19.8 (3) of the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement."

"The GDPR differs from established United States privacy principles in its explicit reference to “proportionality” as a precondition of data use, and in its more robust approach to data minimization and to purpose specification. In our view, a federal law should incorporate these elements too. We also recommend that federal law should adopt the GDPR definitions of concepts such as “personal data”, “legal basis” including opt-in “consent”, “processing”, “special category personal data”, ”profiling”, “data controller”, “automated decision making”, “purpose limitation”, and so forth, and tools such as data protection impact assessments, breach notification, and records of processing activities."

"In keeping with the fair information practice principles (FIPPs) of the 1974 US Privacy Act, Brave recommends that a federal law should require that the collection of personal information is subject to purpose specification. This means that personal information shall only be collected for specific and explicit purposes. Personal information should not used beyond those purposes without consent, unless a further purpose is poses no risk of harm and is compatible with the initial purpose, in which case the data subject should have the opportunity to opt-out."

Submissions by Brave and others are available to the public at the FTC website in the "Public Comments" section.


Study: Privacy Concerns Have Caused Consumers To Change How They Use The Internet

Facebook commissioned a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) to understand "internet inclusion" globally, or how people use the Internet, the benefits received, and the obstacles experienced. The latest survey included 5,069 respondents from 100 countries in Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Overall findings in the report cited:

"... cause for both optimism and concern. We are seeing steady progress in the number and percentage of households connected to the Internet, narrowing the gender gap and improving accessibility for people with disabilities. The Internet also has become a crucial tool for employment and obtaining job-related skills. On the other hand, growth in Internet connections is slowing, especially among the lowest income countries, and efforts to close the digital divide are stalling..."

The EIU describes itself as, "the world leader in global business intelligence, to help companies, governments and banks understand changes in the world is changing, seize opportunities created by those changes, and manage associated risks. So, any provider of social media services globally would greatly value the EIU's services.

The chart below highlights some of the benefits mentioned by survey respondents:

Chart-internet-benefits-eiu-2019

Other benefits respondents said: almost three-quarters (74.4%) said the Internet is more effective than other methods for finding jobs; 70.5% said their job prospects have improved due to the Internet; and more. So, job seekers and employers both benefit.

Key findings regarding online privacy (emphasis added):

"... More than half (52.2%) of [survey] respondents say they are not confident about their online privacy, hardly changed from 51.5% in the 2018 survey... Most respondents are changing the way they use the Internet because they believe some information may not remain private. For example, 55.8% of respondents say they limit how much financial information they share online because of privacy concerns. This is relatively consistent across different age groups and household income levels... 42.6% say they limit how much personal health and medical information they share. Only 7.5% of respondents say privacy concerns have not changed the way they use the Internet."

So, the lack of online privacy affects how people use the internet -- for business and pleasure. The chart below highlights the types of online changes:

Chart-internet-usage-eiu-2019

Findings regarding privacy and online shopping:

"Despite lingering privacy concerns, people are increasingly shopping online. Whether this continues in the future may hinge on attitudes toward online safety and security... A majority of respondents say that making online purchases is safe and secure, but, at 58.8% it was slightly lower than the 62.1% recorded in the 2018 survey."

So, the percentage of respondents who said online purchases as safe and secure went in the wrong direction -- down. Not good. There were regional differences, too, about online privacy:

"In Europe, the share of respondents confident about their online privacy increased by 8 percentage points from the 2018 survey, probably because of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU’s comprehensive data privacy rules that came into force in May 2018. However, the Middle East and North Africa region saw a decline of 9 percentage points compared with the 2018 survey."

So, sensible legislation to protect consumers' online privacy can have positive impacts. There were other regional differences:

"Trust in online sources of information remained relatively stable, except in the West. Political turbulence in the US and UK may have played a role in causing the share of respondents in North America and Europe who say they trust information on government websites and apps to retreat by 10 percentage points and 6 percentage points, respectively, compared with the 2018 survey."

So, stability is important. The report's authors concluded:

"The survey also reflects anxiety about online privacy and a decline in trust in some sources of information. Indeed, trust in government information has fallen since last year in Europe and North America. The growth and importance of the digital economy will mean that alleviating these anxieties should be a priority of companies, governments, regulators and developers."

Addressing those anxieties is critical, if governments in the West are serious about facilitating business growth via consumer confidence and internet usage. Download the Inclusive Internet Index 2019 Executive Summary (Adobe PDF) report.


New Bill In California To Strengthen Its Consumer Privacy Law

Lawmakers in California have proposed legislation to strengthen the state's existing privacy law. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson jointly announced Senate Bill 561, to improve the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). According to the announcement:

"SB 561 helps improve the workability of the [CCPA] by clarifying the Attorney General’s advisory role in providing general guidance on the law, ensuring a level playing field for businesses that play by the rules, and giving consumers the ability to enforce their new rights under the CCPA in court... SB 561 removes requirements that the Office of the Attorney General provide, at taxpayers’ expense, businesses and private parties with individual legal counsel on CCPA compliance; removes language that allows companies a free pass to cure CCPA violations before enforcement can occur; and adds a private right of action, allowing consumers the opportunity to seek legal remedies for themselves under the act..."

Senator Jackson introduced the proposed legislation into the sate Senate. Enacted in 2018, the CCPA will go into effect on January 1, 2020. The law prohibits businesses from discriminating against consumers for exercising their rights under the CCPA. The law also includes several key requirements businesses must comply with:

  • "Businesses must disclose data collection and sharing practices to consumers;
  • Consumers have a right to request their data be deleted;
  • Consumers have a right to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information; and
  • Businesses are prohibited from selling personal information of consumers under the age of 16 without explicit consent."

State Senator Jackson said in a statement:

"Our constitutional right to privacy continues to face unprecedented assault. Our locations, relationships, and interests are being tracked without our knowledge, bought and sold by corporate interests for their own economic gain and conducted in order to manipulate us... With the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act last year, California took an important first step in protecting our fundamental right to privacy. SB 561 will ensure that the most significant privacy protections in the nation are effectively and robustly enforced."

Predictably, the pro-business lobby opposes the legislation. The Sacramento Bee reported:

"Punishment may be an incentive to increase compliance, but — especially where a law is new and vague — eliminating a right to cure does not promote compliance," the California Chamber of Commerce released in a statement on February 25. "SB 561 will not only hurt and possibly bankrupt small businesses in the state, it will kill jobs and innovation."

Sounds to me like fearmongering by the Chamber. Senator Jackson has it right. From the same Sacramento Bee article:

"If you don’t violate the law, you won’t get sued... To have very little recourse when these violations occur means that these large companies can continue with their inappropriate, improper behavior without any kind of recourse and sanction. In order to make sure they comply with the law, we need to make sure that people are able to exercise their rights."

Precisely. Two concepts seem to apply:

  • If you can't protect it, don't collect it (e.g.,  consumers' personal information), and
  • If the data collected is so value, compensate consumers for it

Regarding the second item, the National Law Review reported:

"Much has been made of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent endorsement of “data dividends”: payments to consumers for the use of their personal data. Common Sense Media, which helped pass the CCPA last year, plans to propose legislation in California to create such a dividend. The proposal has already proven popular with the public..."

Laws like the CCPA seem to be the way forward. Kudos to California for moving to better protect consumers. This proposed update puts teeth into existing law. Hopefully, other states will follow soon.


California Seeks To Close Loopholes In Its Data Breach Notification Law

California pursues legislation to close loopholes in its existing data breach notification law. Current state law in California does not require businesses to notify consumers when their passport and biometric data is exposed or stolen during a data breach. The proposed law would close that loophole.

The legislation was prompted by the gigantic data breach at Marriott's Starwood Hotels unit. The sensitive information of more than 327 million guests was accessed by unauthorized persons. The data accessed -- and probably stolen -- included guests' names, addresses, at least 25 million passport numbers, and more. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the proposed legislation:

"Though [Marriott] did notify consumers of the breach, current law does not require companies to report breaches if only consumers’ passport numbers have been improperly accessed... In 2003, California became the first state to pass a data breach notification law requiring companies to disclose breaches of personal information to California consumers whose personal information was, or was reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person... This bill would update that law to include passport numbers as personal information protected under the statute. Passport numbers are unique, government-issued, static identifiers of a person, which makes them valuable to criminals seeking to create or build fake profiles and commit sophisticated identity theft and fraud. AB 1130 would also update the statute to include protection for a person’s unique biometric information, such as a fingerprint, or image of a retina or iris."

Assembly member Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) introduced the proposed legislation to the California House, and said in a statement:

“There is a real danger when our personal information is not protected by those we trust... Businesses must do more to protect personal data, and I am proud to stand with Attorney General Becerra in demanding greater disclosure by a company when a data breach has occurred. AB 1130 will increase our efforts to protect consumers from fraud and affirms our commitment to demand the strongest consumer protections in the nation."

Good. There are too many examples of companies failing to announce data breaches affecting companies. TechCrunch reported that AB 1130:

"... comes less than a year after state lawmakers passed the California Privacy Act into law, greatly expanding privacy rights for consumers — similar to provisions provided to Europeans under the newly instituted General Data Protection Regulation. The state privacy law, passed in June and set to go into effect in 2020, was met with hostility by tech companies headquartered in the state... Several other states, like Alabama, Florida and Oregon, already require data breach notifications in the event of passport number breaches, and also biometric data in the case of Iowa and Nebraska, among others..."

Kudos to California for moving to better protect consumers. Hopefully, other states will also update their breach notification laws.


Large Natural Gas Producer to Pay West Virginia Plaintiffs $53.5 Million to Settle Royalty Dispute

[Editor's note: today's guest post by ProPublica discusses business practices within the energy industry. It is reprinted with permission.]

By Kate Mishkin and Ken Ward Jr., The Charleston Gazette-Mail

The second-largest natural gas producer in West Virginia will pay $53.5 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged the company was cheating thousands of state residents and businesses by shorting them on gas royalty payments, according to terms of the deal unsealed in court this week.

EQT Corporation logo Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp. agreed to pay the money to end a federal class-action lawsuit, brought on behalf of about 9,000 people, which alleged that EQT wrongly deducted a variety of unacceptable charges from peoples’ royalty checks.

The deal is the latest in a series of settlements in cases that accused natural gas companies of engaging in such maneuvers to pocket a larger share of the profits from the boom in natural gas production in West Virginia.

This lawsuit was among the royalty cases highlighted last year in a joint examination by the Charleston Gazette-Mail and ProPublica that showed how West Virginia’s natural gas producers avoid paying royalties promised to thousands of residents and businesses. The plaintiffs said EQT was improperly deducting transporting and processing costs from their royalty payments. EQT said its royalty payment calculations were correct and fair.

A trial was scheduled to begin in November but was canceled after the parties reached the tentative settlement. Details of the settlement were unsealed earlier this month.

Under the settlement agreement, EQT Production Co. will pay the $53.5 million into a settlement fund. The company will also stop deducting those post-production costs from royalty payments.

“This was an opportunity to turn over a new leaf in our relationship with our West Virginia leaseholders and this mutually beneficial agreement demonstrates our renewed commitment to the state of West Virginia,” EQT’s CEO, Robert McNally, said in a prepared statement.

EQT is working to earn the trust of West Virginians and community leaders, he said.

Marvin Masters, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the settlement “encouraging” after six years of litigation. (Masters is among a group of investors who bought the Charleston Gazette-Mail last year.)

Funds will be distributed to people who leased the rights to natural gas beneath their land in West Virginia to EQT between Dec. 8, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2017. EQT will also pay up to $2 million in administrative fees to distribute the settlement.

Settlement payments will be calculated based on such factors as the amount of gas produced and sold from each well, as well as how much was deducted from royalty payments. The number of people who submit claims could also affect settlement payments. Each member of the class that submits a claim will receive a minimum payment of at least $200. The settlement allows lawyers to collect up to one-third of the settlement, or roughly $18 million, subject to approval from the court.

The settlement is pending before U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey in the Northern District of West Virginia. The judge gave it preliminary approval on February 11th, which begins a process for public notice of the terms and a fairness hearing July 11 in Wheeling, West Virginia. Payments would not be made until that process is complete.

Filed under:

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.