FTC Sues 'Massive' Data Broker for Selling Location Info on Abortion Clinics (vice.com) 120
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued Kochava, a large location data provider, for allegedly selling data that the FTC says can track people at reproductive health clinics and places of worship, according to an announcement from the agency. From a report: The news is a dramatic move from the FTC in a post-Roe United States, and signals that the agency will take steps against what it identifies as privacy violations around reproductive health and location data. "Defendant's violations are in connection with acquiring consumers' precise geolocation data and selling the data in a format that allows entities to track the consumers' movements to and from sensitive locations, including, among others, locations associated with medical care, reproductive health, religious worship, mental health temporary shelters, such as shelters for the homeless, domestic violence survivors, or other at risk populations, and addiction recovery," the lawsuit reads.
They are so lucky (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are just alive because everyone thinks they're not worth the jail time for ridding the world of them.
Re: They are so lucky (Score:2)
Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
If congress critters were not so lazy, this would be a DOJ suit and not an FTC suit . . . yet corporations, not listed in the constitution, have more rights than people.
I just made myself sad.
Re:Laws (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't about congress being lazy... it is about being partisan. There is no compromise and even opportunities for a majority fail because someone ostensibly in the majority "wants to represent the best interests of their constituents".
HAHAHA. Like this amounts to anything (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While I am totally against doing this type data gather and sale, I have to wonder exactly WHAT law did they break in doing so?
I'm wondering if the FTC has standing to bring this lawsuit? And especially in light of the SCOTUS (right decision here) ruling on the EPA and other govt bureaucracies essentially going beyond their mandates and "making up law"....I'm wondering if this case will stand at all?
I think, per my other posts, that congress sho
Re: (Score:2)
Put them on the record on who they value more...their constituents or their corporate donors.
Corporate donors. This isn't even a question that needs pondering.
Re: (Score:2)
And especially in light of the SCOTUS (right decision here) ruling on the EPA and other govt bureaucracies essentially going beyond their mandates and "making up law"....I'm wondering if this case will stand at all?
I'm guessing a lot of judges and politicians have phones. Time to start making that data available to anyone too. Show them personally how little privacy everyone has, including themselves.
Of course a lot of them probably think they are special (they are not), so all this might do is make the hypocrisy and double standards more obvious.
Chosen content (Score:2)
The suit is based, per the article, on the company selling data for "everything", but it concentrates on EVIL DIABOLICAL STUFF.
"I want cell phone data in the area of xxxN yyyW" could be trying to spot people hanging out near a Dairy Queen, or an abortion clinic, or a church. Doesn't matter which. And it doesn't matter WHY. Just that they COULD ask for it.
But someone decided to make this "actionable", by pointing out ONE reason why it would be "bad". And Slashdot fell for it.
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Y'all know that one of the next things up on the conservative todo list is going after abortion clinics' records and retroactively punishing those who have used their services right? It's just a matter of waiting for next year's supreme court session.
The only way to stop it is if enough of those bible-belt conservative women who have been preaching against abortion for decades now but secretly had one realize the danger they are in and go cancel out their husbands' votes.
If that doesn't happen then they and anyone else who has had one is screwed!
Re:So? clickbait (Score:2)
Abortion centers were one of many identifiable locations in proximity to the phones.
"... among others, locations associated with medical care, reproductive health, religious worship, mental health temporary shelters, such as shelters for the homeless, domestic violence survivors "
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm going to assume the FTC is acting in a politically neutral way here (despite all of the rhetoric here on ./) because, well,
Re: (Score:2)
Curious as to where I can find these numbers you have. Are they "persons who had an abortion" vs. "number of women", or "number of abortions" vs. "number of women"?
Of the women I'm familiar with, 3 have had abortions during the last 30 years. But, they've had in excess of 9 abortion (at last count), with 7 of those a single woman. So, would those be "3 women who have had abortions", or "9 abortions per XX women"?
If, say, 36 women were involved, would that make "1 in 4", or "3 in 36" under the criteria used
Re: (Score:2)
https://ajph.aphapublications.... [aphapublications.org] Work is done to ensure that these calculations take into account that many women have multiple abortions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so the "1 in 4" is a guess made in 2008 for future terms, that was "proven" incorrect in 2014.
They do not seem to be tied to "1 in 4" women in general. One of the tables says about 15 per thousand (overall) women had an abortion in 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that assumes that they maintain the "I will have an abortion" mantra throughout the years. That seems like a specious argument, even at best, considering there were 4 times the births as abortions during the one year. Certainly, not every woman is going through the decision process every year.
But I'll grant that your numbers are much fairer than many I see boasting large number of women get an abortion, rather than have a kid. It doesn't match what I've seen over the last 30 years, so maybe it's one of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the state of US healthcare, the chance of these unit pumpers to die in labor is nontrivial anyway, so the problem should, as a friend put it, "mendel [wikipedia.org] itself out".
PSA for iPhone users: Turn Precise Location off (Score:5, Informative)
For any iPhone users who keep Location Services enabled for apps they trust, you should still consider switching "Precise Location" location off.
Settings > Privacy > Location Services > [app name] > Precise Location
Disabling Precise Location only gives the app a fuzzy idea of where you are, rather than a pinpoint location, so it can help protect the privacy of your home address, your work, or other destinations you might be visiting. It's good enough for the weather and close enough that I have yet to encounter a curbside pickup that complains when I click "I'm here" in their app. I leave Precise Location on for pictures, but that's one of the few exceptions.
After you do that housekeeping, keep an eye out the next time you're prompted to allow location tracking by an app. You'll find that there's a little "Precise" label in the top left of the map popup that appears at the same time. Tap it and you can toggle Precise Location sharing off right from the start.
It's a matter of life and death (Score:1, Troll)
The right wing, i.e. the Republican Party, is already using violence to achieve it's goals. The insurrection on January 6th was not an isolated event. The Alex Jones/Infowars assault on the families of Sandy Hook victims is now a standard tact
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Specific references to what are perceived to be right-wing causes, then saying they're "evidence" of a vast right-wing conspiracy to do things normally associated with left-wing sources?
Someone is seriously "bent" to hide things like left-wing riots in Kenosha, Chicago, Seattle, and dozens of other places to say that violence is "just" a right-wing thing. These places weren't a bunch of "right wing kooks" doing bad things, including violence against people. They just had better people hiding what they did,
Insanity (Score:2)
It's now illegal to tell people where abortion clinics are?
The FTC can force them to disclose (Score:3, Insightful)
As for whether or not it matters that data collection is Big business, that's up to you isn't it? Did you vote in your primary election? Did you look into the political stances of the people you voted for in your primary election? Are you pressuring for ranked choice voting? Are you telling your friends and family to stop voting based on name recognition or worse
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that was Nixon as a part of his southern strategy.
Raygun just deepened the relationship
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the first taste of power in American for the religious was the revolutionary war. [insert "always has been meme"]
"by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/r... [loc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan did the greatest of things. He and Gorbachev ended the costly and potentially the deadest war known to the human race. Thanks to these two men you are probably fucking alive to bad mouth them. Ending that war and probably saving the human race, anything else they may have done pales in comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and Raygun had no hand in Gorbachev's dismissal of the Soviet Union except making speeches and spending 3T on the STILL useless Star Wars program.
So, in conclusion, your history sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like someone needs a history lesson. You are probably alive because of these two great men working together. Now shut the fuck up and be happy to be alive.
Lesson over.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Still a fucking moron I see. Why don't you take my advice and shut the hell up and be happy to be alive because of these two great men?
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you eat a bag of dicks before you try to spread your lies again.
REMEMBER the Soviet Union ended during the BUSH admin, NOT RAYGUN.
He had nothing at all to do with it except make speeches and "jokes" about "The missiles are flying"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like AutodidactLabrat is an idiot and doesn't understand basic history. Listen dumbass, I never said he had anything do with the fall of the Soviet State. What happened moron, was both these key leaders sat down and worked out several treaties that basically ended the cold war. What Reagan and Gorbachev did was not see each other as enemies.
Now before you open your yap and say something stupid. Sit down, read what was said, and apply reading compensation. That way the next time you open your
Re: (Score:1)
Raygun did nothing but make jokes about "The missiles are flying" and spend 3T on the worthless Star Wars.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but this subject is now closed. Please use the time you would normally respond with your stupid rambling to better educate yourself. In the mean time please drop to your knees and pray to whatever God or gods you have that these two great men come alone when they did to save your sorry life.
Now repeat after me. Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the latter half of the 20th century. Thank you. Thank you.
Repeat till you are not a idiot. Moving on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, when they gave out the quits, they gave you a double helping of stupid didn't they?
I know what its like to be a idiot, well actually I don't, but I can imagine. Actually no, I can't do that ether but I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling.
Lets review. First of all, subject is close, but here are the facts again. You owe your life to Ronald Reagan, that is a fact. The cold war was ended because of the work of Ronald Reagan, that is a fact. All this is a fact and none of your made up bulls
Re: (Score:1)
The cold war ended because Gorby, WITH NO INPUT from Raygun, acknowledged the failure of Soviet policy and then the Spetznast rejected orders to seize the nation.
Your lies are all tangled up wit
Re: (Score:2)
No actually, I read through your posting history. You are truly an idiot. I was just making fun of you but, yeah, you are a moron. I've been told its not okay to make fun of the special needs, and you are about as special as it gets around here.
I know slashdot has lots of idiots and I've made fun of a lot of them. But I'm going to have to move you to the front of the line. It would be fun to continue to make fun of you, but I got to draw line at making fun of the mentally handy capped.
Re: (Score:1)
Notice not one single "Star wars" program, at 3T dollars, yielded a working aBM system able to strike incoming missiles with no warning and no track plot.
In addition, his tripling of the national debt left the nation unable to meet the needs of the working class (the people who paid for his cutting top marginal rates by 75%).
Boy, you batting
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So who gave you this 35 year old crap instead of facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Five rambling posts that nobody, including me, is going to read. Look, you really need to get some help. You are frothing at the mouth over a man, admittedly a great man, that hasn't been president for almost three decades. Not to mention he has been dead for almost two.
I know mental illnesses are nothing to laugh at, and I'm sorry that I made fun of yours. Get some rest and take whatever meds you are on. You might want to get them checked to see if they need to be adjusted.
When you get ba
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Two more rambling posts that no one, including me, are going to read. Have you spoken to your doctor about having your meds adjusted?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let me give you a heads up on what is going on here. After I realized you were mentally unstable, I added your name to a custom web browser filter I wrote. When you post all I see on my screen where your posts would be is.
"AutodidactLabrat ramblings deleted by filter,"
I will never see anything you post here again.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you considered a craniectomy to reduce the bullshit running around in your head?
EVERYONE knows about Reagan's speeches about the "Evil Empire" and what an utter lie those were, EVERYONE knows his "Laffer curve" was old fashioned, utterly failed Trickle down.
EVERYONE knows that it was Gorby, NOT Raygun, who established Perestroika, an effort at accomodation and EVERYONE knows about Star Wars Saber Ratttling and the 3 TRILLION buc
Re: (Score:2)
"AutodidactLabrat ramblings deleted by filter,"
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you what. I'll add some safe words to the filter that will let me see your posts if you really wish me too. Just enter this text in your signature, spelling and capitalization count.
"Donald J. Trump is my Daddy"
Put that in your signature and I'll see everything you post.
Re: (Score:2)
"AutodidactLabrat ramblings deleted by filter,"
Who's your daddy?
Re: (Score:2)
"AutodidactLabrat ramblings deleted by filter,"
Come on, post it. You know you want me to read your ramblings. Who's your daddy?
Re: (Score:2)
"AutodidactLabrat ramblings deleted by filter,"
Very well. With your stubborn refusal use your safe word, I believe we can safely come to conclusion that you have nothing important to say. Judging by the lack response from any other parties, committing or modding nobody else gives two shits ether. Since this conversation has fell so far down Slashdot hole and is about be archived, I doubt anything you said here will be read by anyone, ever.
I'm going to move on now and not post here any more. You can keep ranting here till the archive the thread i
Re:The FTC can force them to disclose (Score:4, Interesting)
If they track your data, they can ONLY sell it or give it out if you opt in.
Seems pretty simple, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't pass, for precisely the same reasons such laws don't pass for postal, email, or phone spam. Such advertising is a big busines and contributes to various legislator's campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
If they track your data, they can ONLY sell it or give it out if you opt in. Seems pretty simple, no?
I don't think it seems simple. "[smallprint] By using this website you consent to your data being shared." "The FTC slapped a fine of $1m, or 0.001% of google's revenue, for violating the law". I think it requires considerable legislative skill to get something like this write.
Re: (Score:2)
sell it or give it out if you opt in
You mean like: "By using this app you agree to...(ten pages of legaleze)"
Most people will click "yes" without even reading it. They just want the app.
Good luck trying to educate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems pretty simple, no?
Yep, that's precisely why we are not tracked in the EU. Oh wait we are, because your simple view isn't anywhere near as simple as you make out, and with that lovely "opt-in" clause you successfully gave the entire industry an out.
* By ticking this box your agree to the terms of us and our partners and explicitly opt in to us selling data to whomever the fuck we want. If you don't tick this box we will not provide you the essential service you so desperately seek. Do you want to play a game?
Re: The FTC can force them to disclose (Score:2)
The app terms say something like By using our app you agree that we may collect data x,y, and z and sell it to our partners at our discretion. Here is a novel idea: why are you using apps and devices that monetize you in this manner? Your remedy is to stop using the app decide or service. Its a free market.
Re: The FTC can force them to disclose (Score:2)
The data broker is likely not collecting anything. They are buying data with phone ad identifiers in bulk from app companies. What do the T&C of the app cos say? By using this app you agree we may collect and sell your location information at our discretion? Where is the violation there? Collecting all this data is legal regardless of where you go.
Re: (Score:2)
America doesn't have much in the way of privacy laws but what we do have our consumer protection laws.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ever since the '80s we wanted to be inspired by our politicians instead of treating it like a job interview where we're the interviewer"
This reminds me of either of a Yes Minister or a Yes Prime Minister episode where Humphrey is telling Hatcher that to take such a stance would "courageous". Naturally Hatcher got the colleywobbles, an affliction rife within our pols. Right now the R's are running away from abortion as fast as their little feet can take them.
Maybe there should be. (Score:2)
Collecting the data is one thing, but allowing a third party to search it without a warrant (government) may be unconstitutional regardless of those shrink wrap EULAs. Also they are trespassing on your data (everyone else).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, these EULA's have limits. Also the government cannot use this data in many cases. If Google gave government a list of people that its AI decided through correlation was a burglar for a particular case, then most likely that evidence would not be admissible in court. Even with phone records you need a warrant and the phone company cannot voluntarily turn over that data. Possibly it could be used to point investigators into in a particular direction.
But overall, this particular case isn't really about
Re: There is no right to privacy (Score:2)
Eh maybe make a law that if you collect location data, and any of that data happens to include a health care clinic, hospital, etc, then it becomes PHI, and anybody holding that data becomes covered entity under HIPAA.
Watch how fast they scrub that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not make it just a tiny bit larger and protect all of us....make ANY sale of non-HIPAA data based on opt in of the individual ONLY.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be under HIPPA already, depending on the magnitude (which they likely satisfy).
Re: There is no right to privacy (Score:2)
HIPAA only applies to covered entities, and the law is pretty specific about what is a covered entity, and these guys don't currently even begin to qualify as one. The law would have to be changed in order for them to be covered.
Basically the law would have to be changed so that if they store location data, and that location data includes references to any places that belong to existing covered entities, then they themselves become a covered entity, and their data becomes subject to HIPAA, and location data
Re: There is no right to privacy (Score:2)
Lets say you go to the hospital and I observe you walking in. Is the fact that you visited the hospital protested information? Why or why not? I would say no, because you are in public view.
Re: There is no right to privacy (Score:2)
No, currently it is not.
Re:There is no right to privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there is. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
What is lacking in the US is enforcement, because of a bizarre cult of greed, usually and mistakenly called "capitalism".
Re: (Score:2)
Noble words, I guess, but they sure are weasely. Politicians in countries without a first amendment immediately use that to ban people saying bad things about them, even if true.
So...not really noble.
Re:There is no right to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
This is not true. 15 USC ss57a (a,1)(B)
rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title), except that the Commission shall not develop or promulgate any trade rule or regulation with regard to the regulation of the development and utilization of the standards and certification activities pursuant to this section. Rules under this subparagraph may include requirements prescribed for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.
Congress has giving authority for the FTC to regulate "deceptive acts" which is defined in this act as either: "reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States" or "involve material conduct occurring within the United States that could cause injury."
The FTC already uses Section 5 power to regulate online tracking that is egregious and has filed docket for an ANPR on Aug. 11 this year to augment section 5 powers to allow people to seek civil penalties for first-time violations.
And the thing to remember that even though we've had section 5 protections from the FTC since 2015, suing on violation of regulations isn't some incredibly short process. Kochava knew that this lawsuit was coming because the FTC has to file a number of complaints against violators before filing suit. Even then, they'll go to court to hammer out the alleged violations of 15 USC Chapter 2(I) ss45b and that will take a major amount of time as well, hence the ANPR to start speeding things up on that aspect.
So this isn't a clear cut, "Oh well you agreed to the TOS so too bad so sad." Nor is this a clear cut "The FTC is going to sue them into a crater". It's testing out an authority the FTC only recently (yes, seven(ish) year old rules are "recent" when it comes to the courts) codified in rule making. And even then, the shot the FTC is taking is very narrow because the whole "injury" part gets really dicey when it comes to just knowing information but having no actionable event having taken place. This is one of those reasons why it feels like everything is reactionary and not preemptive. Courts do not like to rule on perceived injury.
Re:There is no right to privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
You already can't sign away your right to life or your freedom from slavery in a contract. Maybe we should start considering privacy to be an inseparable right that can't be forfeited, even voluntarily.
Re:There is no right to privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Ticking a box on some corporation's web page shouldn't give them the right to do you harm.
Here's a thought experiment: A corporation includes a clause in their ToS stating that users give permission for their banking credentials to be sold on data markets. Who's to blame when users' bank accounts are emptied?
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
Take your fascist bootlicking bullshit elsewhere. You aren't remotely funny.
Re: (Score:2)
This person is a troll with some bad mental disorder. Do not feed the troll. (Yes, I have occasionally been guilty of this as well...)
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
Fair enough, I apologize.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is bad no matter what. If you want politician not to chase headlines and clicks, stop electing the ones that do.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"Your side" didn't find it bad when it published records of which households had gun licenses.
"Your side" didn't find it bad when it published public records of people who signed petitions to get certain proposals on the ballot.
Hint: It isn't an argument about who is right. You are both lousy.
Re: (Score:2)
How the left applies the law, depends precisely on how much they like you.
Definition of corruption. Where is equal protection? The Democrats use law enforcement to go after people they don't like and only defend people they do like.
Biased and on a mission of social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not to say the US has a strong legal basis for getting far with this action. Mainly I think the administration is just doing whatever it can with executive action to show that it is pro-choice. But over time, and I mean probably decades, this might lead to wider-ranging legislative restrictions on da
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know you have no problem being tracked when you go to your mental health sessions, or your church, or who you visit. Such wokeness (whatever that means).
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Privacy only matters when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Abortion is a medical situation. This has nothing to with “woke” you brain dead idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're new to politics but in general there are right wing issues and left wing. Abortion is predominantly a left wing issue. Woke is a term used to describe a collection of leftist issues, of which abortion is certainly one.
Abortion is a political situation. In almost 0% of the time it is actually medical. Very very rarely is the health of the mother an issue. Woman sluts it up, regrets her promiscuous behavior, and wants to put a child to death so she doesn't have to bear the consequences of her act
Re: (Score:2)
Lame troll, 1/5 at best.
Re:Privacy only matters when... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, simply put, outrage porn for the Left side of the political spectrum
It's outrage because I guarantee these shitty red states are going to use the data to charge women who leave the state for an abortion.
Re:Privacy only matters when... (Score:4, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with woke ideals.
I despise the wokes like anyone else but i am pro choice. Besides, considering places of worship as sensitive is not even a left wing thing. And nobody wants his or her employer knowing you go to a mental health session. It has nothing at all to do with wokism.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's data should be private, what exactly is your point? That it's abused on one end doesn't mean the other end wouldn't be protected as well.
Everyone's so happy with shit in someone else's pudding that they don't notice that generally not allowing corporations to shit in anyone's pudding should be what we're aming for.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew the US supreme court in the 60s was so woke.
Re: (Score:2)
Only women who want their unborn child murdered shall have privacy.
- Woke biased DOJ.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for your jurisdiction, in mine, you actually have rights you can't waive.