{"id":4050,"date":"2022-08-01T16:42:20","date_gmt":"2022-08-01T16:42:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2022\/08\/01\/privacy-news-august-1\/"},"modified":"2022-08-01T16:42:20","modified_gmt":"2022-08-01T16:42:20","slug":"privacy-news-august-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2022\/08\/01\/privacy-news-august-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Privacy News: August 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s been a while since the last Privacy News, and there’s a lot going on!<\/p>\n

Privacy After Roe<\/h2>\n

These Companies Know You\u2019re Pregnant\u2014And They\u2019re Not Keeping It Secret<\/a><\/h3>\n

Shoshana Wodinsky and Kyle Barr, The A.V. Club on Gizmodo (gizmodo.com)<\/p>\n

Gizmodo identified 32 different brokers across the U.S. selling access to the unique mobile IDs from some 2.9 billion profiles of people pegged as \u201cactively pregnant\u201d or \u201cshopping for maternity products.\u201d \u00a0Hundreds of millions more profiles were \u00a0labeled \u201cinterested in pregnancy\u201d or \u201cintending to become pregnant.\u201d \u00a0Here sthe spreasheet with all thei info<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Gizmodo was able to figure out the likel data sources for 19 of these brokers. \u00a0For example:<\/p>\n

Quotient didn\u2019t make it clear in either of those cases where it was getting that purchasing data from, but Gizmodo\u2019s investigation revealed that the company also owns the popular couponing site, coupons.com<\/a>. The site has offered coupons for products like Plan B<\/a> in the past, though it does not currently. Gizmodo also found that Quotient had access to purchasing data from shoppers at Giant Eagle\u2014a chain of small pharmacies in the Northeast and Midwest\u2014via a proprietary ad network<\/a> the data broker operates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

SEE ALSO: Data brokers shrug off pressure to stop collecting info on pregnant people<\/a>, by Alfred Ng on Politico<\/em>, a very good complement to the Gizmodo article.<\/p>\n

South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion<\/a><\/h3>\n

Cat Zakrzewski on The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)<\/p>\n

A new bill in the \u00a0South Carolina legislature, modeled after the National Right to Life Committee’s model bill, would make it illegal to \u201caid, abet or conspire with someone\u201d to obtain an abortion. <\/p>\n

The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or \u201c[provide] an internet service\u201d with information that is \u201creasonably likely to be used for an abortion\u201d and directed at pregnant people in the state.<\/p>\n

Legal scholars say the proposal is likely a harbinger of other state measures, which may restrict communication and speech as they seek to curtail abortion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Federal Privacy Legislation<\/h2>\n

Further Thoughts on ADPPA, the Federal Comprehensive Privacy Bill<\/a><\/h3>\n

Daniel Solove on TeachPrivacy (teachprivacy.com)<\/p>\n

Well-respected privacy scholar Daniel Solove follows up on his previous analogy that ADPPA’s preemption is a Faustian bargain<\/a>, responding to comments by Omer Tene. \u00a0He starts by clarifying that his “B+” grade for ADPPA was on a curve:<\/p>\n

As I have argued extensively in my scholarship<\/a>, I believe that existing privacy laws have some severe shortcomings and must be changed significantly to be up to the challenge of protecting privacy…. \u00a0Many parts of privacy laws have pretty-sounding rhetoric but ultimately are not any deeper. Further, the ADPPA is being weakened as it winds its way through the federal legislative process, which has a knack for whittling away at the stronger elements of laws.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He also highights an issue with ADPPA’s private right of action I haven’t seen others mention:<\/p>\n

But if ADPPA preempts state privacy laws, then this forces people to use the private right of action in federal court, where people must deal with the dragon of standing. The U.S. Supreme Court has worked its typical mischief upon standing doctrine, altering it to shut out many valid cases involving clear violations of federal privacy statutes with causes of action. The Court has found ways to creatively interpret away statutory damages provisions (Doe v. Chao). And, more recently in its war against plaintiffs, the Court has allowed courts to throw out cases brought under private rights of action if courts don\u2019t think that there\u2019s a harm. Courts have struggled to recognize privacy harms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And he highlights another important problem with ADPPA’s preemption:<\/p>\n

There wasn\u2019t as much momentum for a comprehensive privacy law prior to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA was rushed through the California legislature in the summer of 2018 to stave off a referendum. The referendum had widespread popular support, and its existence drove the legislative agenda…. <\/p>\n

The CCPA\u2019s first referendum was pulled because the CCPA was passed, but a subsequent referendum strengthened the law in 2020. \u00a0Although the CCPA after the amendments is still not where I\u2019d like it to be, the referendum process is quite valuable. Of course, there are problems with the referendum process, but a virtue is that it gives the people a say in the legislative agenda. The California referendums sent a loud message: People were concerned about privacy and didn\u2019t think existing laws were adequate. No longer could legislatures bury their heads in the sand. No longer could the tech industry and Big Data industry coast on legislative inaction…. \u00a0Companies actually got off easy, because I think nearly anything would have passed in the referendums, and it was somewhat of a squandered opportunity. But nothing can stop more referendums in the future . . . . except for the ADPPA. \u00a0The ADPPA could shut the door on this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Omer Tene responds on LinkedIn<\/a>.<\/p>\n

ALSO<\/strong>: <\/p>\n