Radio Shack's Proposed Sale Of Customer Data Violates Its Privacy Policy

Radio Shack is on life support and will soon no longer exist in its current format.  Its unfortunate that a store I grew up going to with my grandfather will soon be out of business.  Its last great hurrah was its awesome Super Bowl ad that brought back its glory days from the 1980's. 

Radio Shack is losing so much money that it has resorted to selling one of its most prized assets.  Its customers' personal information.  What is most disturbing is that despite its long stated privacy promise that "[w]e will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time," this promise may be ignored in bankruptcy court. 

Last year, an educational technology company ConnnectEDU tried to sell the millions of records it had accumulated on young children and the FTC stepped in and fought to require it to honor its privacy promises.  My hope is that the FTC joins Texas regulators in fighting to protect Radio Shack's customers' personal information.  Personally Identifiable Information is extremely valuable and its a very positive step that regulators are beginning to understand the importance of requiring companies to honor their privacy commitments to its customers or users. 

I don't want data brokers to learn about all of the cool things I use to make with my late grandfather.  Its none of their damn business! 

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

New York Times Facebook Content Deal Is A Threat To Personal Privacy

The New York Times is one of the world's most respected news organizations and one of the most popular destinations for news on the Internet.  However, I was dismayed to read in The New York Times that it may strike a deal to house some of its content inside Facebook.

This is a very troubling development for not just the media landscape but also for the freedom of thought and expression.  The ramifications of this potential deal will erode the privacy of The New York Times' readers and it will enable data brokers and their clients to create richer profiles of those who read the paper via Facebook due to Facebook's troubling deal with multiple data brokers.

When a New York Times reader utilizes Facebook to access articles, this information will be sent to Facebook's data broker partners who will insert this content into a user's digital dossier.  This data may be utilized by banks, insurance companies, employers, etc... to discriminate against people for reading about certain topics.  For example, when someone reads a lot of articles about their race, sexual orientation, health issue, religion, etc.. this data will be tracked and a data broker may provide it to one of their clients who may utilize it to decide on whether a reader is a good fit for a job. 

While ad networks and other digital tracking platforms already combine every digital morsel about users they can find, being able to track users from their personal Facebook account creates a new level of data purity that from a privacy standpoint is very troubling.  I don't want data brokers to be able to track everything that I read on The New York Times and combine that information with other personal characteristics about myself.

Due to Facebook's troubling privacy policy and practices, I do not utilize it for personal communications and I have no plans on doing so in the future.  I urge The New York Times and others who may be thinking about hosting their content on Facebook to think about these important privacy issues before finalizing any deal that may harm their users' in unanticipated ways.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

WSJ: Key FTC staff wanted to sue Google after finding ‘real harm to consumers and to innovation’

The Wall Street Journal has uncovered a never before released bombshell report that "concluded in 2012 that Google Inc. used anti-competitive tactics and abused its monopoly power in ways that harmed Internet users and competitors."  These revelations are very troubling and raise serious questions about Google's business practices that appear to warrant further investigation.

The unreleased 160-page report concluded that Google’s “conduct has resulted—and will result—in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.”  This internal document was apparently released due to a FOIA request and appears to have not been intended for public consumption.    

According to Yelp's vice president of public policy Luther Lowe, “This document appears to show that the FTC had direct evidence from Google of intentional search bias."  The FTC received testimony from some of the largest technology companies and the evidence compiled appears very troubling.

The bottom line is that the tech business is extremely cut throat and some companies may do almost anything to obtain market share and dominance.  That may include "acting evil" and intentionally harming consumers and stifling innovation for corporate profit.

Copyright 2015 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.

Warrants Should Be Required For Email Access

Last week, I attended the International Association of Privacy Professional’s Washington DC conference and I was impressed with the topics that were discussed.  The keynotes by journalist Glenn Greenwald and Harvard Professor Michael Sandel were top notch and so were all of the sessions that I attended. 

One panel that I found interesting was titled, “Search Warrants vs. Privacy Laws: Can They Live Together”.  The session was moderated by Professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech and included Bruce Brown, the Executive Director of the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press; Nuala O’Connor, President of the Center for Democracy and Technology; and Andrew Pincus a partner at the international law firm of Mayer Brown. 

At first glance, this topic sounds boring and highly legalistic.  However, the issues that were discussed affects everyone who utilizes email, has a cloud based storage account, or other digital based service.  One of the questions discussed during the panel was should a warrant be required for an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over an email or other digital content to law enforcement?  The answer to this question is important because under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) which was enacted in 1986, the government may read any email without a warrant that is more than 180 days old.     

ECPA was written approximately 8 years before The Today Show and other national media outlets started to cover the Internet or the “Information Superhighway”.  The way we communicate has drastically changed in the past 30 years.  For example, instead of sending traditional U.S. postal service mail many people send emails and utilize messaging apps and other digital technologies because these platforms are generally less expensive and faster.  Since our old school traditional paper correspondence is protected from the government absent a warrant shouldn’t our digital communications have the same protections?

Last year, in Riley v. U.S. the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that we have an expectation of privacy in the Digital Age and that the police are generally required to obtain a warrant to search a personal digital device.  This case built upon the 2012 U.S. v. Jones case that ruled a warrant was required to place a GPS tracker onto a car.  Following the reasoning in both of these Supreme Court cases, a California federal district court ruled last week that police need a warrant to obtain access to one’s cell phone location or GPS data. 

These recent cases have signaled that we still have an expectation of privacy despite new forms of digital communications and surveillance techniques. Unfortunately, an ongoing matter that has major privacy and public policy implications has not followed the Supreme Court’s lead in recognizing the importance of establishing clear digital privacy rights. 

In Microsoft v. U.S., the company is arguing that the government must obtain a warrant or other court order in the host country of where a digital communication is located even though the company may have the capability of providing access to the document from the United States.  On page 36 of 73 in the U.S. response [that was filed on 3/9/15] to Microsoft's argument that the government must obtain a warrant to obtain access to an email it states, [b]ecause the emails sought in this investigation are now more than 180 days old the plain language of the SCA [Stored Communications Act of ECPA] would authorize the government to use a subpoena to compel disclosure of everything it sought pursuant to the Warrant."  

The government's argument is disconcerting; however, so far the courts have ruled that a warrant is not needed for emails older than 180 days.  The government's interpretation of the SCA that emails older than 180 days do not need a warrant to be turned over demonstrates that more education is needed about these issues. 

In general, the government is required to obtain a warrant or have exigent circumstances (i.e. occurs when people are in imminent danger, when evidence may be destroyed, or when a suspect is on the run) to be able to gain entrance into your tangible property (i.e. your home, or car, etc..) so it should be required to obtain a warrant to gain access to your digital property (i.e. your email account, cloud storage, etc...).   

As a hedge against the courts continuing to follow an outdated and unconstitutional law (the SCA), its time to support a long overdue legislative fix to the situation.  The bipartisan Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad  Act (LEADS Act) follows a common sense philosophy that by properly balancing law enforcement’s need to obtain access to digital data with our privacy.  The Act would update the SCA of ECPA to account for the changes in technology that have occurred during the past 30 years and how we communicate with each other. 

In general, it takes time before the law catches up with the capabilities of technology.  This is true across many industries.  However, we must not forget that we still have an expectation of privacy in the Digital Age and now is the time to stand up for that right.  If it becomes law, the LEADS Act will signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is serious about taking a leadership role in protecting the privacy rights of Internet users not just here but also around the globe.

Copyright 2015 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.