10 ms·
Carrier sales of phone-location data is illegal, FCC plans punishment
- nerpderp82 7y agoI think jailtime+fines should be the minimal remedy.
- stalked 7y agoThis doesn't bring retribution to the people who've been stalked as a result of this banana republic activity.
- anonymousiam 7y agoSo it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant, but it's not okay to sell it commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
- flattone 7y agoAt the end of the day the government can do whatever it wants.
- outside1234 7y agoTrump said it was ok. QED.
- lonelappde 7y agoWhy make that leap? This is a new ruling. Ask the FCC if they believe sharing to government is legal.
- munk-a 7y agoThat is in no way contradictory. I disagree with it as much as you but there's lots of stuff the government does that you can't and this isn't anything new. As a parallel statement: > So it's okay for defense contractors to sell tanks to the government but not commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
- anonymousiam 7y agoSelling tanks is covered under ITAR. If there are Federal/State/County/Province/City regulations that cover (or mandate) providing metadata to all levels of government without a warrant, I'd like to see them (assuming they aren't classified).
- mark_l_watson 7y agoI am actually OK with that. I don’t believe the government is going to routinely misuse location data, confiscate my guns, ... etc. I don’t want corporations having my tracking data. The government, Democrats and Republicans, basically do whatever corporations want, so this action is surprising and welcome.
- nostromo 7y agoI see this all the time online, but rarely in the same breath. "I trust the government, which is corrupt and run by evil corporations."
- amurthy1 7y agoThere's a difference between "Corporations have too much power to influence government policy" and "The government will hand over its sensitive personal data records to corporations". I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.
- Gibbon1 7y agoI read the comment as that they are surprised that the government is pushing back instead of legitimizing bad behavior. Likely explanation is the wealthy and powerful have a personal interest here. Consider the security nightmare that phone tacking poses for high wealth individuals.
- tomc1985 7y agoDo you want the ambulance/police car dispatched for you as soon as the operator determines there is a problem, or wait for them to receive your location by you telling them? What about all the people that can't for some reason? It's the only reason in my mind the government should have access to that info, and it's a damn good one
- anonymousiam 7y agoYou are referring to the E911 location data that is provided in real-time to emergency responders. AFAIK everyone is okay with that. I was referring to archival records of all telephone use (calls, text, web).
- ta999999171 7y agoI'll wait. Where's the opt-out button on my device to ensure my 4th Amendment right is exercised? Oh, right. It's forced. "Freedom".
- tomc1985 7y agoE911 is one of those rare, valid exceptions to the bill of rights. Do you think people should be able to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater too? Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
- ammar2 7y ago> Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities That's exactly how it works: > When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transm...
- 0x5f3759df-i 7y agoThe Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- anonymousiam 7y agoSo this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?
- jagged-chisel 7y agoHow did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?
- anonymousiam 7y agoNot much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
- jagged-chisel 7y agoIt’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
- ta999999171 7y agoSure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
- AuthorizedCust 7y ago> So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant... I don't see where the article addresses that point. While it has some resemblance, seems like a different issue covered by different parts of law.
- Analemma_ 7y agoI'll celebrate when the money from the fines is actually sitting in the Treasury account, and not a moment before. Pai is outrageously corrupt, is best friends with telecom CEOs, and with near-certainty will cave to requests to have these punishments reduced to next-to-nothing.
- JohnFen 7y agoYes. Particularly given that Pai's FCC has developed a bit of a habit of levying fines and then not bothering to actually collect them.
- lonelappde 7y agoMore info about this?
- thedirt0115 7y ago0.003% of robocall fines collected so far: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-reportedly-collected-only-0-003-of-robocall-fines-1833649669 https://gizmodo.com/fcc-reportedly-collected-only-0-003-of-r...
- foota 7y agoI'm sure the same precedent will apply for telecoms injecting ads, right?
- Sarcasmatic 7y agoYes, because this FCC decision, in the original text, actually says "Everything bad must stop".
- droithomme 7y agoThank goodness for sanity!
- dd36 7y agoToothless fines. Indict corporate officers or employees that did it... then you’ll get change.
- t-writescode 7y agoDepends on the size of the fine. GDPR fines theoretically hit plenty hard. I think income-based fines are illegal under ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ though, in the United States, (not a lawyer), so maybe that won’t fly.
- ska 7y agoFines don't have to be toothless.
- acdha 7y agoThis is technically true but the odds of a fine being levied which is high enough to register on huge companies like this is exceedingly low, especially since everyone involved in that decision could walk away from a bankruptcy and still be fabulously rich. Punishing shareholders has a lot of collateral damage but personal liability has almost none.
- warent 7y agoIt depends on the perspective. Imagine an FCC shopping page for businesses that says something like: "Gain ability to sell customer location data for a year: $10,000,000" "Fine" is a euphemism for market price. If the profits outweigh the fines and the poor PR can be controlled in a timely manner, then they'll do it every time.
- parvenu74 7y agoBut Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et al are still free to sell phone location data acquired through apps (or Android itself in the case of Google), right? I wonder if there is any hope of laws to limit the ability of companies to sell this data...
- prepend 7y agoTelcos are regulated carriers, facegoog are not. Maybe one day they will be.
- ta999999171 7y agoTheir actions can be regulated. They don't exist in international waters.
- londons_explore 7y agoIt's time to differentiate selling "Bob is in Location X" from "Show this ad to all people at location X". The first case is a far far bigger privacy concern to me, and seems to be what mobile networks were doing. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are doing the latter.
- lonelappde 7y agoIf you click on the ad or run its JavaScript, it has your device info matching the ad geofence
- caconym_ 7y ago+1. I care way more about the existence of an api that tells anyone with money exactly where I am (and where I've been) than I do about one that anonymously attributes (in aggregate) my ad interaction stats to some place I was at or interested in.
- underpand 7y agoYes, there are a lot of malicious actors that actually sell data (apps, browser extensions, phone carriers, potentially ISPs, finance companies, etc.). Many of these actors even sell un-anonymized data. The big tech companies are very low on the totem pole of badness and will continue to stay that way for a long time because the incentives don't align for them to actually sell data.
- PrivateRepo 7y agoWhat companies are immediately going to be affected by this?
- redmattred 7y agohttps://www.skyhook.com/ https://www.skyhook.com/
- thedirt0115 7y agoWow, I had never heard of them, and I did not like this quote from the landing page (if they got their data from mobile carriers like this): "Gain deeper insights from location data to answer questions like who visits certain places, where else do they visit, where do they come from and much more." I don't like the feeling of being spied on.
- loeg 7y agohttps://finance.yahoo.com/quote/T https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/T https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VZ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VZ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TMUS https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TMUS https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/S https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/S Looks like only Sprint and T-mobile are down, and only slightly (2%).
- PrivateRepo 7y agoWhat firms were sourcing this information?
- stock_toaster 7y agoPresumably this only happened because the : > lawmakers in November accused[1] the FCC of failing to protect consumers’ privacy, and said that major wireless carriers were disclosing real-time location to data compilers without consumers’ consent or knowledge. The information could be obtained by companies including bounty hunters, the lawmakers said in a letter. > [1]: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/FCC.2019.11.8.%20Letter%20re%20Location%20Privacy.CAT_.pdf https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycomme... > -- as reported by Bloomburg > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-31/wireless-carriers-violated-privacy-by-sharing-location-fcc-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-31/wireless-... The FCC really has become just a lobbying goat under Pai. Yikes.
- taurath 7y ago> The FCC really has become just a lobbying goat under Pai. Yikes. Who could’ve predicted that, given he was a lobbyist for Verizon.
- borgel 7y agoFair, though Tom Wheeler (previous chairman) was also a lobbyist and he turned out really well.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoWhat does a lobbyist even do? I can't even imagine the scene, they go in a politician's office and just start with "ok hear me out" or am I being naive and it just means finding ways to pay them money?
- URSpider94 7y agoI always assumed there was a lot of talking. Most politicians are inclined to want to help businesses anyway, as they provide jobs and generate tax revenue. If the lobbyist can come in and say “here’s what the cell phone providers nationwide need to stay in business and continue to generate good returns to shareholders and low prices to customers,” then that’s a powerful message - especially when the counter-argument is a pile of faxes and postcards from constituents that don’t tell a coherent story. The money certainly doesn’t hurt, though.
- allan_golds 7y agoNon-closable popup
- choward 7y agoImagine someone time traveled here from 30 years ago first learning what cell phones are then seeing this headline. Why is this even debatable?
- pinko 7y agoBoiling frog syndrome.
- Nicksil 7y ago>The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
- dehrmann 7y agoBut if you watch the pot, the frog won't boil.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 29083011397778 7y agoThe saying is cute, but it's important to note that the frog had to be lobotomized to stay in despite the slow change. i'm not sure what our excuse is, however.
- Krasnol 7y agoThe attention (Advertising) industry shaping our brains: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22201771
- adrr 7y agoBiggest industry affected is the banks. They’ll ping your phone location if you make out of area purchases as a part of fraud detection. If your bank doesn’t require travel notices, they are probably pulling mobile location. Some don’t, I know chase uses mobile app to determine location.
- sjg007 7y agoThis isn’t a carrier selling the data issue. In the mobile app case you install the app and authorize location tracking.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- russdill 7y agoThe saddest thing about this is that my bank no longer requires notification for international travel, but still does for travel within the US. I've had my card shut off for fraud a few times while traveling in the US. Once when I had almost no gas and was outside of cell service, thanks for that. This is presumably due to all transactions outside of the US requiring chip, but those in the US only requiring swipe.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoSwitch banks? I have never once had American Express decline a charge domestic or international. Highly recommend!
- 8note 7y agocarry cash? no one is going to not accept that
- toomuchtodo 7y agoGas pumps will sometimes work after hours even if a clerk isn’t on duty. Same with other self service situations where a card might be your only payment option. Carrying cash is a last resort; you risk losing it or not having enough.
- dv_dt 7y agoI bet someone bought location data for legislators and showed it to them.
- paulmd 7y ago"one or more" hint: it's all of them
- dvduval 7y agoDoes this increase the value of this data for Google?
- jjohansson 7y agoThat would be 3d chess move by Google.
- kumarski 7y agoSome of the companies on this list could be hurt by this: Alternativedata.org
- thedirt0115 7y agoIs anything going to happen to the companies who bought the data? Is that also illegal?
- admax88q 7y agoWhy is it legal for them to collect that data in the first place? Can't sell, abuse, or accidentally leak that which you don't have.
- dredmorbius 7y agoAT&T maintain a comprehensive database of call level history dating to the 1980s. Certainly to resolve customer billing disputes, I'm sure. https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf
- charred_toast 7y agoAre there even laws anymore? It seems like the law only applies to non-corporate entities and citizens. If you're in politics, law enforcement, or the Fortune 500, expect zero consequences for breaking the law. Exceptions exist but aren't the rule.
- gonational 7y agoThis, so much. Bounce over to this comment on another front page post for another great example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22208260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22208260
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- paulproteus 7y agoI've long believed that when companies do illegal things that would normally be punished by prison, the company should go to prison. The company office would have to operate according to the same rules as a prison. Employees on arrival are security-checked the same way prisoners would be when they arrive for the first time. Rules about talking between cells, and device use, are the same as a prison. Once you get to your prison office, and you have your prison clothes on, you can work on paper. I think this should be an existing prison. If a company wants to instead hire prison guards and do renovations to make their existing office work like a prison, I could be flexible to that. Presumably all the employees would rather quit than work in prison. Sounds okay to me. Presumably all investors would pressure the CEO to avoid getting the company put in prison because it would be a real productivity problem. Sounds okay to me.
- KarlKemp 7y agoYeah, you should maybe work on whatever causes these revenge phantasies. It doesn’t seem healthy. On a factual level, I’d just like to point out that "illegal" isn’t (always) equal to "criminal“.
- jkaplowitz 7y agoWhen a corporation is convicted of a crime rather than merely breaking the law in a lesser way, what do you think is the appropriate punishment? I'm not sure myself, but the imbalance in consequences vs an individual convicted of the same crime does feel quite wrong to me.
- bigiain 7y agoI dunno, if society want to continue using it's phantasies of "corporate personhood" which allows companies to do illegal and/or criminal things while somehow protecting the actual people who made the decisions that lead to them, why not "imprison" companies like this? If, for example, _I_ collected and then gave away to a business connection personal information on 87 million people - you can bet I'd be fined more than ~1% of my nett worth for it, and probably spend time in jail too.. Companies continually getting away with shady shit with zero or insignificant consequences are the "cause" of such "revenge phantasies". Suggesting ways to stop that seems like a valid thing to work on...
- johnrgrace 7y agoI note that only REAL TIME location data is illegal, if I want to do most marketing things data from several days ago is perfectly usable.
- sneak 7y agoThe problem is that many private companies now have the historic data. Even if they don’t receive any more in the future, most people only ever go 3-5 places. Collect data for a few years and you have the majority of the population’s locations predicted most of the time for a decade or two.