QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 7

Congress mandated that the FAA pass regulations integrating the use of drones into the U.S. airspace by 2015.  The FAA failed to address issues of privacy when operating drones.  Various states, including Utah, have enacted laws regulating the use of drones by state and local law enforcement.  Should the Congress prohibit the use of drones by federal law enforcement for surveillance purposes without first obtaining a search warrant?

Takeaways for Week 7

1. Tracking of online activity

• Cookies
• A number/text file downloaded to your computer (principally on your browser) that the website can correlate with that computer, recognizing that you've been there before
• Enable you to get around putting in all your information every time you visit that site
• Example: Cookies on Amazon allows the website to remember your billing info
• Super Cookies: Even if you log out of a site (like Facebook), it will still track your online activity
• Don't work as well on mobile devices
• Web beacons
• Small, often undetectable bits of code that are embedded in websites/documents. Identify and monitor user activity on that particular website. Will tell the server how long you were on that particular page.
• Canvas fingerprinting
• Also known as digital fingerprinting.
• Performs the same functions as Cookies. It will instruct your browser to draw a unique, hidden image that will identify your device
• Allows tracking over multiple platforms
• All these tools allow for tracking online activity
• This info is sold to online agencies that target the sites you visit with specific advertisements
• Targeted or behavioral advertising advertises items that match your interests based on collected data. Has a higher reception rate than typical advertising.
• Advertising agencies are using info they've gained about you either directly or from other sources to develop these targeted advertisements.
• Discomfort for these tracking methods led to Do Not Track
• Meant to allow the consumer to opt out of having their web surfing tracked. Similar to the "Do Not Call" list, where people are allowed to opt out of solicitation calls.
• After about 5 years, the parties could not come to an agreement to do this voluntarily, and the Do Not Track effort failed.
• Major browsers began to build in a Do Not Track header. When they attempt to connect to a website, they now include a header a signal that says that this individual does not want to be tracked. This does not mean you are being tracked, as the website owners do not have to honor that signal.
• The Digital Advertising Association represents all the major online advertisers, opposed Do Not Call, proposed a voluntary program for users to opt out of being sent targeted adds, although you would still be tracked online
• Rise of the adblockers
• Data brokers began to develop counter programs to counter adblockers
• Technology arms race between the blockers and anti-blockers

2. Opt-In vs. Opt-Out

• Web tracking should be allowed by default unless the consumer affirmatively opts out (8 in class are for this position)

Vs.

• Web tracking should only occur when a web user affirmatively opts into a tracking program (8 in class are for this position)

3. Consequences of Anti-Tracking

• 8 in class have installed adblockers
• What would be the likely impact of 80, 90% of users used adblocking software?
• Most sites would lose their primary source of revenue, might resort to putting up a paywall
• NYTimes has done this with their online news site
• 4 in class have upgraded to YouTube Red, Spotify Premium, Google Play, etc. which are add free service but charge a fee instead

4. Online Behavioral Advertising

• The online trade agency DAA was against Do Not Track, and implemented an icon to click on Adchoices
• Can go on the DAA site and see how many companies are tracking you (127 for me)

5. Question of the Week

• Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee of $25 to access the WWW is ad free and no tracking?
• Yes…6
• No….9
• For one group, the answer was based around a function of cost (e.g. I would pay $5 but not $25)
• For another group, it was an issue of equality, that the Internet is a democratic platform that everyone should have access to, don't want different "classes" of users
• Net neutrality: ability to pay for better/faster access to the web (highspeed broadband)
• Can also include the concept of service providers throttling access to other sites (Comcast restricting  user access to Netflix but not Hulu)
• Could we support universal access to the Internet?
• For the third group, this was an issue of privacy protection. One should be willing to protect their privacy no matter the cost vs. some who wrote that they thought it wasn't that valuable.

6. Devan Parkinson's Blog Post

• Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act
• Has not even gotten out of committee to be voted upon
• Argues that
• Too costly for businesses to comply
• Little benefit to consumers
• 8 classmates disagreed
• Hannah would like the option to opt out of brokers selling their personal information
• Question of the burden being on the consumer to avoid tracking?
• Christian Hansen (that's me!) feels that the EU standard of companies being required to obtain permission from people in order to collect data about them is the way to go
• Target figured out that a person's daughter was pregnant before the father found out- what else is deducible?

7. Data Brokers

• $156 Billion industry, a "shadow industry"
• Congress has been unwilling to regulate this industry for legitimate and illegitimate reasons
• They collect huge amounts of information, and very little info about its use and collection
• Can't use certain information for employment reasons
• Can't ask someone their race or gender to determine housing
• Can't ask someone about medical conditions when seeking health insurance
• Acxiom has profiles on over 500 million individuals, sometimes with over 1500 data points on a person
• Created a website where you can request the core data that you have about you, do not display "inferred" or modeled data about who they think you are based on analytics
• Provides info on demographics, home, vehicles, purchases, and economics
• Consumer Classifications
• Addictive personality
• Reckless behavior
• Allergy sufferer
• Dieter
• Heavy social media user
• HIV/aids sufferer
• Gambler
• Non-English speaker
• Single mother struggling in an urban setting
• Rape/Sexual assault victim

Police Body Cameras: Privacy for All, or Justice for All?

My best friend is more than familiar with police officers. His father was a police officer in Anaheim, California, and he is now training to become one himself. He once jokingly commented that back when his dad was a police officer “police could beat the crap out of anyone they wanted, leave them in a ditch, and take off.” Although the comment was a joke, it does bear a lot of weight in today’s perception of police officers and their public interactions.

            For the past two years or so, police officers and their credibility have been significantly scrutinized by the public. From incidents in Maryland and Missouri especially, police forces and their authority have been at the center of political and social debate. Amidst this scrutiny, body cameras have increasingly become a hot topic. As of 2017, body cameras have been implemented in 95% of the largest departments in the nation.

Benefits

            There are plenty of benefits – and statistics – which show that body cameras positively affect police behavior towards the public. For example, a study was done in Mesa, Arizona, to determine that since the implementation of police body cameras, there has been a 75% decrease in use-of-force incidents, and a 40% reduction in public complaints about the officers who wore cameras. Other studies have been taken to show that officers engage in less stop-and-frisks while wearing the cameras.

Essentially, police officers are held accountable for their actions, and cannot abuse or harm the public because they know they are being recorded.

Police officers, however, also benefit from them. If someone makes a false claim of misconduct, they can provide the evidence to protect themselves. This situation occurred in 2014 when a New Mexico police officer arrested a woman in 2014. She accused him of sexual misconduct, but the officer informed her that their entire interaction had been recorded, and he was vindicated.

Concerns

One major concern is cost. The cost of these cameras range anywhere from $200 to $2,000 per camera, and then there are costs that accompany data collection and storage.

 Of course, the largest concern is privacy. Police body cameras record footage that is taken in private places like homes and hospitals. Rape victims, children, grieving family members, and others, may be included in footage without their consent. When officers’ actions are called into question, the footage is exposed to the public, and so many different individuals’ privacy is exposed. Some blur the faces of those in the footage, but this often results in the inability to accurately see what takes place in the footage. If a ruling is made that bans footage from being released to the public, then this defeats the purpose of the body camera; therefore, privacy infringement is required.

Another aspect of this privacy applies to police officers. Of course, those who become police officers choose their occupation with the knowledge that their actions could be intensely scrutinized, but there are certain situations that would merit privacy for them. If they have no control over when they can turn their cameras on and off, there is a chilling effect on their performance. They might not be willing to confront an individual – even if that person’s actions are illegal – out of fear that their footage will be exposed to the public and be potentially construed against them. Additionally, I can sympathize with them because even though I don’t do anything illegal or wrong at my job, I wouldn’t want my every action to be potentially recorded and reviewed by my boss. Police officers may want to speak with their partners about favoritism in the department for example, or maybe they have a conversation about their personal life while on duty.

If the police officers have no control of when their cameras are turned off or on, they may also record the public and store the recordings even when they are irrelevant to investigations.

If police officers have control of when they can turn their cameras on and off, this poses the issue that they can choose when to film – or not film – and so could engage in unfavorable activities towards the public.

The technology is also imperfect. Even if the video is captured, the footage does not often show the events in plain sight because the officer is hiding or protecting himself, thereby leaving plenty of room for the public to misinterpret the footage.

Thoughts: Should police body cameras be implemented nationwide, and should they have the ability to turn them on and off at their own discretion?

I believe that police body cameras should be implemented nationwide. Police officers should be required by law to turn them on only when engaging in public interaction e.g. pulling over a vehicle, initiating a stop-and-frisk, etc. I believe that this method eliminates many threats to privacy for both the police officers and the public. The technology should also be updated to show clear and accurate footage.

Body cameras - although infringing on privacy - will do the job of setting the record straight.

Other sources:

https://www.aclu.org/other/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all 

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2016/07/alton-sterling-police-body-camera-7-fact-to-know/

Police Body Cameras

In the wake of technology and information becoming ever more accessible, many institutions have adopted new practices to adjust. Video surveillance has become a widespread phenomenon, and it has many uses in law enforcement in obtaining information during investigations. Many people believe that we should further take advantage of the transparency of video surveillance by requiring officers to wear body cameras while they are on-duty. The number of departments using these "body-cams" have only increased as multiple controversial and questionable cases of deadly force have happened over the last few years.

While the transparency of government-regulated videos of these encounters may be helpful during an investigation, the very use of them does raise privacy concerns for the public. Continuous recording would be most effective to maintain complete integrity, but there are specific encounters which should be protected.

Sensitive Cases

Many situations involve a victim that may be feeling extremely vulnerable, and most of them likely do not want to be documented in their current state. From domestic violence to sexual assault to cases involving children, how will these videos protect those who have already suffered abuse? People may become less likely to call police officers if they have to worry about their own privacy or protecting the identity of their child. These videos have the potential of making the identity of victims public information.

Bystanders

People who simply witness a crime or an accident would be recorded, and they may have no wish to cooperate with police, and should not be forced to be involved. In this area especially the extra concern of facial recognition comes into play. If the body cameras are equipped with such technology, bystanders may be identified simply by being out in public. Whether police are patrolling or on a call, every person who passes risks being identified and their private lives being made public.

Police Privacy

Continuous recording for these officers would help them in many criminal investigation cases, but may feel like quite an infringement during day-to-day practices. If officers are supposed to constantly record, will they be reprimanded or questioned if they turn the camera off for a bathroom break that ran a little long? Or if they simply forgot to turn the device on again afterwards? Will officers even be able to power the devices off? These devices could also limit the officers' capability to speak freely. Chatting with their partner over lunch, conversations may be different if they are concerned about whether or not what they say will be reviewed.

The struggle with these devices is where to find the proper balance between accountability and privacy. What kinds of policies do you guys believe could help officials reach such a balance? DO you believe it is possible, or should these body cams be given up altogether?

For anyone who would like to read it, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discusses some of the potential policies in more depth here.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 6

Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee of $25 to access and use the worldwide web if search engines, social networks and websites were ad free and did not collect information about you or track your web activity?

Data Brokers

Who they are

Have you ever wondered why after searching for a product on Amazon you begin to see advertisements for that and similar products in advertisements on other webpages? It is the result of the work done by data brokers. Data brokers are companies that most of the public know nothing about, but they know everything about the public, and they are not small companies. One of the largest data brokers reported over $800 million in revenue for 2015. Not only are they large, but they have been around for a long time. They use public records to collect data that is then organized, packaged, and sold to other companies to help target ads to the appropriate consumers. With the advent of the internet data brokers were quickly given access to much more information than ever before. Currently there are no laws regulating how this companies collect, store, or share this data. Instead the industry is left to regulate itself.

Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act

In the years 2014 and 2015, in both the house and the senate, bills were introduced that would allow for new laws that would regulate the data broker industry. These bills were known as the Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act. Both years the act was introduced it eventually died without being passed.  The act became a law it would define a “data broker” as a commercial entity that collects, assembles, or maintains personal information concerning an individual who is not a customer or an employee of that entity in order to sell or provide third party access to the information. It would prohibit data brokers from using information about a person that makes a “false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation,” and would require that the data brokers establish procedures to make sure that the information that they collect, assemble, or maintain is accurate. If the data is not accurate and the data broker is aware of the error, they could not legally use the data without correcting it first. In addition, the data broker would be required to provide means for individuals to access and verify that their personal information is correct, and allow individuals to dispute any inaccuracies that they find with the data. In order to facilitate such correction, the data broker would be required to inform the individual of the source of the information and who they would need to contact to make the correction. Once corrected, and the individual shows proof of the correction, the data broker would be required to update their database. The act would also require data broker to provide a method for individuals to opt out of having their data collected. In order for the law to be enforced congress would grant the FTC and states the authority to enforce the act and allow them to make any rules necessary to carry out its execution.

Benefits and Costs

The benefits of passing such a law would definitely shed light on a very unknown industry. The requirements of the law would bring these companies into the spotlight and would make the public aware of the amount of information that these data brokers have and what they do with it. One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), comments that data brokers are a “shadow industry of surreptitious data collection that has amassed covert dossiers on hundreds of millions of Americans.” Being able to correct any errors that is found in the data is also a penitential benefit to the public. As well as having the ability to opt out of having one’s data collected is another positive for the bill if it was passed.

Although there are various potential benefits for passing the law it does come with its costs. One major cost comes from the expenses that businesses would have to incur in order to create the programs needed to allow for individuals to retrieve their data from the massive data bases, and to have policies in place that would allow for individuals to update the data if the data are wrong. Further costs would be created to create a program allowing for an individual to opt out of the collect. In addition to costs the definitions found in the law are very vague and can potentially cause problems for many research firms and other business.

Should this bill become Law?

This is a law that would create a lot of costs for businesses that fall under the its scope, and the public would receive little benefit. This is because many of the complaints that are made about the data broker industry are speculative and three investigations by the FTC in 2014 found little evidence of wrongdoing according to Rachel Thomas, the Direct Marketing Association’s vice president of government affairs. Further the information that is being collected is already public information that is already available to everyone. If this were to pass it would be ineffective at producing a great amount of good and would only give the FTC greater power over businesses. I do not believe that it would be a good policy decision to enact such a law.

Takeaways for Week 6

Geo locational privacy; GPS tracking; ALPR technology; Stingrays

-          Article: “U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure”

·         Placing a tracking device on a car or person is a search and is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

·         Grady, a sex offender, challenged the court’s ruling that he had to wear a tracking device at all times.

·         It’s unclear how the Fourth Amendment interacts with digital technology, and much has to be decided.

·         Wisconsin and North Carolina requires sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devices.

-          Catherine Crump TED Talk: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you

·         ALPR technology could let police could know where you go, with whom, and when.

·         These cameras are placed all around America.

·         The technology records much more than data and numbers – it can discover intimate details about you.

·         It stores and collects data.

Class Discussion February 13th:

-          Government tracking reveals a lot more than the typical person would want.

-          GPS tracking is considered a search, and is not protected by the Fourth Amendment without a search warrant.

-          If the individual is a sexual predator, does the State – or society’s – protection trump the individual’s?

·         Should a sexual predator be required to wear ankle bracelets for life? Is this unreasonable?

·         Wisconsin has a law that required convicted sex offenders to wear ankle bracelets for their entire lives, and they determined that this was reasonable because the individuals are a threat to society.

-          There is no definitive ruling on the constitutionality of GPS tracking through ankle bracelets.

-          GPS Tracking of Cars

·         This violates the Fourth Amendment because it is searching the person’s property.

·         Rented cars pose a different argument (it’s not the person’s property, and so how is it a violation?)

-          GPS Phone Tracking

·         We don’t currently have a warrant for accessing phone contents

·         Without a warrant required, all individuals could be tracked.

·         Third Party Doctrine

§  The third party doctrine has been thought by some as outdated because the digital age we live in that requires so much information transfers via third parties.

-          Stingrays

·         Stingrays capture every cellphone within their region of influence; it cannot access only one cellphone at a time, it accesses the entire region.

·         Phones try to find the strongest signal, and mistake stingrays for cell-towers.

·         Stingrays can be avoided by turning off phones completely, but then how does a cellphone benefit you?

·         13 states – including Utah – have banned Stingrays unless you have search warrants.

Class Discussion February 15^th:

-          Question of the Week: Should the US Congress enact a federal law governing the use of ALPR technology? Class unanimously voted “yes.”

·         There has never been a case that directly answered this question.

·         “If there is no trespass, then it does not qualify as a search.” – Antonin Scalia.

·         Reasonable expectation of privacy vs. trespassing on property.

-          What does law enforcement use ALPR technology for?

·         Locates stolen vehicles, discovers traffic violation information, finds out if a person is wanted for a crime

-          What are the uses of ALPR technology where law enforcement is not concerned?

·         Parking management, surveillance cameras, lights, stop lights, restricted access, automatic ticketing, and repossession companies.

-          Creative use of technology

·         Texas has a law that equips police vehicles with credit card readers that allow instant payment of court fines.

·         You must pay on the spot, or be impounded.

·         Vigilant Solutions, a manufacturer of ALPR technology, is giving Texas police free ALPR readers and access to its database of plate images in exchange for a 25% “processing fee” when a person makes a payment. Vigilant gets 25% of the fine.

·         Privacy concern: A lot of smaller law enforcement agencies will know about warrants in other states because ALPR technology covers four to five states.

-          ALPR Class Exercise

·         The University of Utah has an ALPR system that it uses for parking management in lieu of parking passes or stickers.

·         Question: “Develop a policy regarding the use of the system. What privacy and data collection issues do you see, and how would your policy address them?”

§  Is the data kept, and for how long? How long is it retained? Is it shared?

§  Should teachers be allowed access to determine where a student is if he/she misses class?

§  Requirements: data must only be kept for a short period of time; it must be secured from hackers.

-          Utah’s ALPR Law

·         The law only applies to the government.

·         Collection of ALPR data is banned except for protecting public safety.

·         ALPR data is “protected” record.

·         ALPR data may not be preserved for more than 90 days absent court order.

·         The government may not obtain private ALPR data absent a search warrant.

A Little Perspective

This talk does a really good job of putting the things we're learning about into the perspective of our own lives. It's a little unnerving, so be forewarned!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNZrq2iK87k&t=7106s

QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 5

There is a growing privacy concern with the proliferation of automatic license plate readers primarily centering around the creation of massive databases that could be used for surveillance purposes.  ALPR devices are being used both by government and private businesses and several states, including Utah, have enacted laws regulating their use.  Should the U.S. Congress enact a federal law governing the use of ALPR technology? 

Group 2 Case Studies

Scenario 1:

1. Yes, we would give the ticket holders notice that they are being watched with facial recognition software by printing something on the back of a ticket and putting up signs around the stadium.
2. Holding and using the ticket gives implied consent due to the warning on the back and entering the stadium gives implied consent due to the warning signs.
3. For our policy, we will only store the information about the crowd for a max of 24 hours after the game. We will store the data in a secure manner and will not sell the information. And only a select group of security personnel will have access to the data.

Scenario 2:

    We only created a list of questions about the kiosk since we decided that questions, concerns, and issues are all very similar (you are concerned about an issue so you ask a question about it).

Questions:

Does it save pictures, how long?

What are the websites and programs the technology uses/queries?

Does it store information about what you buy?

Who has access to this information (just the drink company, the drink company and the store the kiosk is located in, or the drink company and every store that has a kiosk)?

How does the coupon system work?

Does the kiosk create a profile about users, and can one access the profile it creates about them?

Does the purchase history exclude prescriptions/sensitive items?

Can you opt out of the program and still be a frequent shopper?

How far is the range of the scanner?

Can you see what photos the program uses?

What kind of warnings or forms of consent are given to users?

Are customers allowed to send feedback on the coupon and kiosk?

Group 1 Case Studies

Scenario 1-

            Notice- In order to give notice to the public and inform them of facial recognition use, we would place signs around arena and also online when purchasing the ticket. When people purchase their ticket, as well as walk around the stadium, they will be informed of facial recognition features.  In depth information would be online.

            Consent- Those who come into the stadium or purchase tickets would imply consent.  Because it is such a public event, there would be no expectation of privacy.

            Policies-  We decided that  our footage would not be used for any reason other than security.  We would not sell the footage to ad companies or use it to pinpoint people at the game unless there was acceptable reason.  The footage would be kept in a safe database that is only accessible to security personnel for a month after the game and then it would be deleted.

Scenario 2- 

            Questions and Concerns- Intrusive because of social media use.  What are the benefits of connecting to social media? How accurate is the software and how does it prevent false positives?  What company is holding this information and who has access to it? Is consent given at kiosk or when you sign up for frequent shoppers? A very large invasion of privacy for such a little gain.

            Policy- Individuals information should not be stored, but can be put in bulk categories.  Give the shoppers a way to opt out of certain pieces of the program.  Other data brokers can only have access to the bulk information not individuals.