5 ms·

AT&T to Face EFF Class Action for Selling Customers’ Location to Bounty Hunters

270 points by howard941 7y ago

jimbob45 7y ago
Why would the lawyers choose this hill to be the hill they live and die upon? I feel like you're going to have a tough time garnering sympathy for this specific case.
- Cd00d 7y ago
  I guess it's possible that _this hill_ is a particularly good revenue hill.
  - guelo 7y ago
    Not as good of a revenue hill as selling all your cell phone usage data.
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  What is particularly wrong with the plaintiff's in this case which proves them to be unworthy of your sympathy?
- BonesJustice 7y ago
  Perhaps it’s the case they can most easily prove, and/or find enough class members with standing who are willing to get involved.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  Protecting civil liberties generally means defending unsympathetic characters. They always are chosen first, and they must be defended before the precedent is set. By the time encroachers move on to sympathetic characters, it's too late. The encroachment has been normalized, it is in fact normal, and the liberty was lost already. That's not my original thought, but I can't find the original quote. I think it's from the ACLU, from some occasion when Jewish lawyers were defending free speech of neonazis or something.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... Is the case you're looking for. On its face, ACLU defended Neonazis. A deeper reading is that the ACLU defended the first amendment's rights of speech and of peacably assemble and redress grievances. History: Skokie was a destination for many Jewish peoples who came from the death camps in Germany in WWII. Choosing this site for the march was intentional. However, the march wasn't actually done.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Why is protecting phone company customers from massive abuse of their data bad ?
alteria 7y ago
I initially thought the EFF was suing for publicity, knowing that the mandatory arbitration provisions and class-action waivers were likely to stand. However, they do have some legs to stand on, since California's supreme court ruled in 2017 that injunctive relief could still be sought under an arbitration agreement. [1] Of course it's likely that this ruling wouldn't be held up by the Supreme Court, which has consistently upheld/defended arbitration agreements, but one can dream. [1]https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/california-supreme-court https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/...
- rayiner 7y ago
  I don’t see how the FAA is within Congress’s commerce clause power.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    It is one of the greatest blunders of the constitution. Nowhere near enough thought went into limiting the power. Granted, the commerce clause is almost the whole purpose of the federal government, but it's nonetheless far too broad. Everything is interstate commerce.
    - wahern 7y ago
      Plenty of stuff isn't interstate commerce. The expansion of Federal Commerce Clause powers is the result of a more expansive application of the Necessary & Proper Clause. Which is why the recent FAA decisions are absurd on their face. Even if you agreed with the 1940s era precedent expanding Federal powers it's still trivial to reject application of the FAA to most commercial transactions. The FAA expressly limits itself to interstate commerce. And an expansion of federal powers doesn't in any way, shape, or form require or even suggest that a court should reinterpret the settled application of previous statute, particularly when the text, intent, purpose, and history of that statute was quite obviously circumscribed to a particular class of commercial transactions.
jacklinks 7y ago
Don't forget the aggregators like 3cinteractive
mikelward 7y ago
I didn't realize they did this until I heard about it in a Reply All episode. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/awhk76/135-robocall-bang-bang?utm_source=gimletPlayer&utm_medium=copyShare&utm_campaign=gimletPlayer https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/awhk76/135-robocall-... No way would I have consented to them selling my location data.
t34543 7y ago
Disgusting. We are all subsidizing spyware (mobile phones).
H8crilA 7y ago
PSA: remember to periodically donate to EFF if you can and care. I'm sending them about 25% of my continuous donation budget: https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
- diafygi 7y ago
  I like donating what I call "The Orwell Tax". $19.84 per month (or year, if you can't afford monthly).
hkai 7y ago
I could not figure out why this is not considered personal information. Is the data anonymized or has a phone number attached to it?

270 points by howard941 7y ago

Why would the lawyers choose this hill to be the hill they live and die upon? I feel like you're going to have a tough time garnering sympathy for this specific case.

Cd00d 7y ago
I guess it's possible that _this hill_ is a particularly good revenue hill.
- guelo 7y ago
  Not as good of a revenue hill as selling all your cell phone usage data.
24gttghh 7y ago
What is particularly wrong with the plaintiff's in this case which proves them to be unworthy of your sympathy?
BonesJustice 7y ago
Perhaps it’s the case they can most easily prove, and/or find enough class members with standing who are willing to get involved.
emiliobumachar 7y ago
Protecting civil liberties generally means defending unsympathetic characters. They always are chosen first, and they must be defended before the precedent is set. By the time encroachers move on to sympathetic characters, it's too late. The encroachment has been normalized, it is in fact normal, and the liberty was lost already. That's not my original thought, but I can't find the original quote. I think it's from the ACLU, from some occasion when Jewish lawyers were defending free speech of neonazis or something.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... Is the case you're looking for. On its face, ACLU defended Neonazis. A deeper reading is that the ACLU defended the first amendment's rights of speech and of peacably assemble and redress grievances. History: Skokie was a destination for many Jewish peoples who came from the death camps in Germany in WWII. Choosing this site for the march was intentional. However, the march wasn't actually done.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Why is protecting phone company customers from massive abuse of their data bad ?

alteria 7y ago

I initially thought the EFF was suing for publicity, knowing that the mandatory arbitration provisions and class-action waivers were likely to stand. However, they do have some legs to stand on, since California's supreme court ruled in 2017 that injunctive relief could still be sought under an arbitration agreement. [1] Of course it's likely that this ruling wouldn't be held up by the Supreme Court, which has consistently upheld/defended arbitration agreements, but one can dream. [1]https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/california-supreme-court https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/...

rayiner 7y ago
I don’t see how the FAA is within Congress’s commerce clause power.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 7y ago
  It is one of the greatest blunders of the constitution. Nowhere near enough thought went into limiting the power. Granted, the commerce clause is almost the whole purpose of the federal government, but it's nonetheless far too broad. Everything is interstate commerce.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Plenty of stuff isn't interstate commerce. The expansion of Federal Commerce Clause powers is the result of a more expansive application of the Necessary & Proper Clause. Which is why the recent FAA decisions are absurd on their face. Even if you agreed with the 1940s era precedent expanding Federal powers it's still trivial to reject application of the FAA to most commercial transactions. The FAA expressly limits itself to interstate commerce. And an expansion of federal powers doesn't in any way, shape, or form require or even suggest that a court should reinterpret the settled application of previous statute, particularly when the text, intent, purpose, and history of that statute was quite obviously circumscribed to a particular class of commercial transactions.

jacklinks 7y ago

Don't forget the aggregators like 3cinteractive

mikelward 7y ago

I didn't realize they did this until I heard about it in a Reply All episode. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/awhk76/135-robocall-bang-bang?utm_source=gimletPlayer&utm_medium=copyShare&utm_campaign=gimletPlayer https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/awhk76/135-robocall-... No way would I have consented to them selling my location data.

t34543 7y ago

Disgusting. We are all subsidizing spyware (mobile phones).

H8crilA 7y ago

PSA: remember to periodically donate to EFF if you can and care. I'm sending them about 25% of my continuous donation budget: https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

diafygi 7y ago
I like donating what I call "The Orwell Tax". $19.84 per month (or year, if you can't afford monthly).

hkai 7y ago

I could not figure out why this is not considered personal information. Is the data anonymized or has a phone number attached to it?