Online privacy

The House of Representatives adopted the Email Privacy Act in February to modernize the protections afforded electronic communications that would require obtaining a search warrant in almost every case. That proposal met resistance in the Senate in 2016 when Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, sought to add a provision allowing law enforcement to skip the warrant requirement in emergency situations. Whether the legislation can get through the current Senate is an open question, and it is not clear whether President Donald Trump would sign off if the Justice Department opposes the bill. That may mean the Supreme Court will have to establish the broad parameters of digital privacy while Congress tries to deal with the intricacies of a world of electronic communication that continues to evolve rapidly.

Devices connected to the internet, from cellphones to watches to personal training trackers that facilitate our personal habits and communications, are a fact of daily life, and the Supreme Court will have to start drawing clear lines around what types of electronic information are — and are not — protected by the Fourth Amendment. Simply asserting that there is a right to privacy does not provide much help in determining how far that protection should extend in a digital world.

Through years of rulemakings and enforcement actions, the Federal Communications Commission has developed the expertise necessary to protect consumer privacy on communications networks. Consumers are concerned about their ability to protect their personal privacy for themselves and their families. According to survey results released by the National Telecommunications Information Administration, a significant number of consumers avoid online activities because of privacy concerns. To foster security, opportunity, and development of the internet, the FCC must continue to have a strong role in protecting broadband privacy. As members of Congress continue to develop online privacy legislation, they should understand the important role the FCC plays in protecting consumer privacy on communications networks.

While many technology companies continue to step up their privacy game by adopting best practices to protect sensitive customer information when the government demands user data, telecommunications companies are failing to prioritize user privacy when the government comes knocking, an Electronic Frontier Foundation annual survey shows. Even tech giants such as Apple, Facebook, and Google can do more to fully stand behind their users.

EFF’s seventh annual “Who Has Your Back” report digs into the ways many technology companies are getting the message about user privacy in this era of unprecedented digital surveillance. The data stored on our mobile phones, laptops, and especially our online services can, when aggregated, paint a detailed picture of our lives—where we go, who we see, what we say, our political affiliations, our religion, and more. AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile, and Verizon scored the lowest, each earning just one star. While they have adopted a number of industry best practices, like publishing transparency reports and requiring a warrant for content, they still need to commit to informing users before disclosing their data to the government and creating a public policy of requesting judicial review of all NSLs.

In an age where fear of terrorism is high in the public consciousness, governments are likely to err on the side of safety. Over the past decade, the authorities have been pushing for – and getting – greater powers of surveillance than they have ever had, all in the name of national security. The downsides are not immediately obvious. After all, you might think you have nothing to hide. But most of us have perfectly legal secrets we’d rather someone else didn’t see. And although the chances of the authorities turning up to take you away in a black SUV on the basis of your WhatsApp messages are small in free societies, the chances of insurance companies raising your premiums are not.

Democrats aren't feeling the love for Rep Marsha Blackburn 's (R-TN) privacy bill, the BROWSER Act. "Despite her goal of bipartisan support, [Chairman] Blackburn has so far failed to attract a single Democratic co-sponsor a month and a half after the bill's introduction. And Democrats are pledging to follow through on their plans to make the privacy issue a campaign talking point in the 2018 congressional elections, seeking to punish GOP lawmakers for their 'creepy' and 'indefensible' move to axe the Federal Communications Commission's landmark rules shielding consumer data," they write. "Bottom line is, Republicans made every effort to get rid of the FCC privacy provisions, and at this point, I don't think that their efforts are credible," said House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ).

Added Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): "All I know is that she led the charge on ripping privacy protections away from every single American on the internet. I think that's the reason she introduced another bill. This is CYA [cover your ass]." Chairman Blackburn, for her part, had this retort: "The failure of Democratic leadership to substantively engage on this issue is revealing and belies other motives."

Soon after President Donald Trump took office with a pledge to cut regulations, Republicans in Congress killed an Obama-era rule restricting how broadband companies may use customer data such as web browsing histories. But the rule may be finding new life in the states. Lawmakers in almost two dozen state capitols are considering ways to bolster consumer privacy protections rolled back with President Trump's signature in April. The proposals being debated from New York to California would limit how AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast use subscribers' data.

The privacy rule is just one example of states resisting policy changes wrought under the Trump administration. 35 states are pressing for the right to enforce laws guaranteeing internet service speeds live up to advertisements. "If the federal government lags, the states have to lead. And that's what we're doing," said Tim Kennedy, a Democratic New York state senator. Kennedy introduced a bill to prohibit internet service providers from selling customer web searches, social media histories and other personal information to third parties -- the crux of the nixed federal regulation.

An interview with Vint Cerf, the co-creator of tech that makes the internet work.

Cerf said, "My biggest concern is to equip the online netizen with tools to protect himself or herself, to detect attempts to attack or otherwise harm someone. The term 'digital literacy' is often referred to as if you can use a spreadsheet or a text editor. But I think digital literacy is closer to looking both ways before you cross the street. It’s a warning to think about what you’re seeing, what you’re hearing, what you’re doing, and thinking critically about what to accept and reject...Because in the absence of this kind of critical thinking, it’s easy to see how the phenomena that we’re just now labeling fake news, alternative facts [can come about]. These [problems] are showing up, and they’re reinforced in social media."

Officials in nearly every state say they cannot or will not turn over all of the voter data President Trump’s voting commission is seeking, dealing what could be a serious blow to Trump’s attempts to bolster his claims that widespread fraud cost him the popular vote in November.

The commission’s request for a massive amount of state-level data last week included asking for all publicly available information about voter rolls in the states, such as names of all registrants, addresses, dates of birth, partial Social Security numbers and other data. It immediately encountered criticism and opposition, with some saying it could lead to an invasion of privacy and others worrying about voter suppression. The states that won’t provide all of their voter data grew to a group of at least 44 by Wednesday, including some, such as California and Virginia, that said they would provide nothing to the commission. Others said they are hindered by state laws governing what voter information can be made public but will provide what they can.

The operators of a lead generation business have agreed to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that the company misled consumers into filling out loan applications and sold those applications – including consumers’ sensitive data – to virtually anyone willing to pay for the leads.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Blue Global Media, LLC and its CEO Christopher Kay operated dozens of websites that enticed consumers to complete loan applications that the defendants then sold as “leads” to a variety of entities without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure. The websites, which operated under such names as 100dayloans.com, 1hour-advance.com, cashmojo.com and clickloans.net, offered services to consumers seeking a variety of loans, including payday and auto loans. The company claimed it would search a network of 100 or more lenders, and connect each loan applicant to the lender that would offer them the best terms.

The FTC charged that, in reality, the defendants:

• sold very few of the loan applications to lenders;
• did not match applications based on loan rates or terms; and
• sold the loan applications to the first buyer willing to pay for them.

Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are among those signing onto an amicus brief supporting Facebook in its efforts to protect the anonymity of its users and alert them if they are under investigation. According to Access Now, the government, which is investigating Trump inauguration protests that turned violent, has requested that Facebook unmask the identities of three users under a gag order, which means the company can't tell the people in question about the warrants. "First, the non-disclosure order is both a prior restraint and a content-based restriction on speech and is therefore subject to the most demanding First Amendment scrutiny," the groups write. "Second, the underlying warrants are apparently calculated to invade the right of Facebook's users to speak and associate anonymously on a matter of public interest."