"Despite the carriers' promises, a Motherboard investigation found in January 2019 that "T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T are [still] selling access to their customers' location data and that data is ending up in the hands of bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it, letting them track most phones in the country"
The problem is that those companies can do these crimes because they know they can afford to pay the fine and that no one will go to jail
I think the bigger problem in the US is that there really aren't standard fines for mishandling or purposely misusing customer data similar to what is structured under the GDPR in Europe.
Wait, why wouldn't bounty hunters be authorized to possess it? Isn't pursuit of someone who has a bench warrant exactly the kind of lawful purpose this is supposed to be limited to?
Bounty hunters are no different to you or I, in most places (and outlawed in several states). Some states require licensing as a PI. They have no connection to law enforcement (and due to abuses, many states ban any implication thereof, down to the color of vehicles used).
Sure, and now everyone knows to shred documents more thoroughly than Enron did.
Although I agree. A company should be managed such that moral transgressions that happen in lower levels should not be possible. That's exactly the reasoning they applied to Joe Paterno and it should apply to every company as well.
>> offered a service enabling law enforcement officers to locate most American cell phones within seconds
this is additionally concerning given the fact that cell phone numbers are frequently recycled by phone companies, 'from' the previous owner who is no longer making payments, and 'to' a new person who is probably a child.
No, you missed a good point. Everyone in the US who needs a phone, has a phone (gross generalization, but accurate enough). Therefor, the only people getting new phones are children who newly have a need for a phone.
This is isn't "think of the children" with buckyballs, this is "think of the children" with phone numbers potentially under questionable surveillance for a previous owners activities. A perfectly reasonable thing to think about, especially in the context you presented in parens. Obviously, this shouldn't be happening for anyone, but children are more likely to feel the effects.
I live in a two-party-consent state and I'm wondering how tortured a reading of the wiretapping statute it would require for this to qualify. It certainly seems like my phone's location ought to qualify as "Private communication transmitted by radio."
This is an interesting point. I haven't read the applicable wiretapping laws, but from my extremely limited understanding, they apply to the conversation and not the location. As one does not expect privacy when out in the public, how about when one is in the confines of one's own home? Can they legally track me in there since I'm not out in public? Do I have the right to privacy in my own home?
If two people are having a conversation about something — let’s say the location of alice’s backpack — which is immediately obvious to anyone walking by the coat hook in the front of the office, should that conversation lose wiretapping protection?
How would someone know the backpack is Alice's unless they were tapping the conversation? If you're not in the immediate vicinity of the backpack witnessing her drop it off, then you've gained information that is otherwise not publicly known. Sure, one could request camera footage showing the event, but I would hope that the person in possession of said footage would at least ask for a warrant first.
This is pretty much doomed to fail because of the pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses coupled with class action waivers contained in the carriers' contracts. Under the current law surrounding arbitration it is a practical impossibility for consumers to sue cell phone companies.
It seems like all big companies have to do is create a press release saying reports of your illegal activities are false, then rely on lawyers, spokespeople, donated lawmakers and spin to face little to no consequences.
What are the odds that the US actually puts something like GDPR with the current campaign finance system as it currently is?
I really want to see this happening because whole "you are the product" line does not apply here. People pay for these services, that should be the end of profit motive. If they want to fuel a location data industry, give users a choice/incentive for that.
Indeed. What people seem to miss is not just that "you are the product" but more "what stops you from being a product". Many major companies have shareholders that demand constant growth. The growth are sometimes limited by the offers a company can provide, so they may start to cannibalize their own customers in hopes it won't drive them away, just to keep that year-over-year growth. Eventually it comes down to the consumers ability to push back.
Really wish the chief officers were all directly prosecuted for the actions of the company. They do, after all, receive a majority of the income; why not get the bad with the good? Actions like selling the live location of customers wouldn't be so appealing if it meant 10 years in jail.
29 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 69.4 ms ] threadThe problem is that those companies can do these crimes because they know they can afford to pay the fine and that no one will go to jail
It's absurd.
It's not the same thing.
First, they defraud the shareholders by doing things they said they wouldn't with the shareholder's company.
Then when they get in trouble, they use the shareholders money to buy their 'get out of jail free card'.
I wish the government would find the officers personally liable.
Although I agree. A company should be managed such that moral transgressions that happen in lower levels should not be possible. That's exactly the reasoning they applied to Joe Paterno and it should apply to every company as well.
this is additionally concerning given the fact that cell phone numbers are frequently recycled by phone companies, 'from' the previous owner who is no longer making payments, and 'to' a new person who is probably a child.
This is isn't "think of the children" with buckyballs, this is "think of the children" with phone numbers potentially under questionable surveillance for a previous owners activities. A perfectly reasonable thing to think about, especially in the context you presented in parens. Obviously, this shouldn't be happening for anyone, but children are more likely to feel the effects.
What are the odds that the US actually puts something like GDPR with the current campaign finance system as it currently is?