Senators Push FTC To Protect Location Data Of Abortion Clinic Visitors

from the how-many-warnings-are-we-going-to-need dept

Earlier in May, Motherboard showcased how it was relatively trivial to buy the location data of cellphone users that had visited abortion clinics across the U.S. As states criminalize getting abortions (and helping people get abortions), there’s valid concern that our rampant failure to secure user location data will be abused in new and exceptionally terrible ways, both by state leaders and newly emboldened vigilantes.

As such, 16 Senators wrote the FTC this week asking it to explain what it’s doing to ensure that the location data of those visiting abortion clinics won’t be abused:

“We write to express serious concerns regarding recent reports identifying data brokers buying and selling location data that include personal data related to family planning and abortion services. We respectfully request additional information on what steps the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking to ensure data brokers are not collecting, buying, or selling sensitive location data that put people, particularly those seeking medical attention, at risk.”

The problems with the rampant over-collection and sale of user location data have been well documented.

This data has routinely been abused by everybody from stalkers to law enforcement and those pretending to be law enforcement. The data, collected by wireless companies, app makers, OS makers and others, is routinely bought and sold up and down a major chain of different companies and data brokers with nothing even vaguely resembling meaningful oversight.

When scandals happen (pretty much weekly), the companies involved in the collection and sale of said data argue that it’s no big deal because the data is “anonymized,” a generally useless term that doesn’t actually mean much. When government accountability happens, it generally involves wrist slaps and fines that are a tiny fraction of the money made from the practice.

Motherboard highlighted not only how several companies were trafficking in the sale of location data of abortion clinic visitors, but were also openly selling lists of users who had downloaded period tracking apps. It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to see how the current trajectory we’re on could get very ugly, very quickly, in states where authoritarianism and a total disdain for privacy rights collide.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Senators Push FTC To Protect Location Data Of Abortion Clinic Visitors”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
31 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You think is vile for the government to use to its immunity power to incentive private actors to violate the rights of others?

Yes, I do⁠—and considering how you literally advocated for the immunization of people trying to force women into giving birth by way of blocking access to abortion clinics, that advocacy makes you a vile piece of shit.

You think you’re going to “gotcha” me by comparing your bullshit to Section 230, which immunizes services like Twitter against legal liability for speech Twitter neither created nor published in any capacity? Fuck off with that, man. You’re not that clever and I’m not that stupid.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“You think you’re going to “gotcha” me by comparing your bullshit to Section 230, which immunizes services like Twitter against legal liability for speech Twitter neither created nor published in any capacity? Fuck off with that, man. You’re not that clever and I’m not that stupid.”

Fuck sticks you are dumb. If you think its different its not. Its the use of government power to encourage private action that would be otherwise an actionable civil tort or criminal tort.

Its only different in your mind because you think one is important and the other is not.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Its the use of government power to encourage private action that would be otherwise an actionable civil tort or criminal tort.

Your little idea is about private entities being given immunity from the law for the purpose of preventing people from undergoing a voluntary medical procedure. 47 U.S.C. § 230 is about privately owned interactive web services being given immunity from legal liability for third party speech that the services neither wrote nor published.

Please explain how those two things are the same.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The government is using immunity power to encourage private parties to engage in that which the government is constitutionally prohibited from engaging in.

Moderating speech on a privately owned platform isn’t the same thing as using physical (and possibly lethal) force to stop someone from getting (or performing) an abortion. Trying to equate the two as if they’re the same thing for the purposes of a shitty “gotcha” about Section 230 that doesn’t even work is a new low even for you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

We respectfully request additional information on what steps the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking to ensure data brokers are not collecting, buying, or selling sensitive location data that put people, particularly those seeking medical attention, at risk.”

For me, this raises some questions, like:
* If the answer’s “none, as long as some fine print tells you how fucked you are”, then what? Lawmakers IIRC have neutered the FTC’s antitrust authority and never given them much authority over shady but non-deceptive practices.
* Is there any kind of location data other than sensitive?
* Why ask only about data brokers, and not the phone companies who sell the data to them?

Upstream (profile) says:

Politicians grandstanding (but only a little)

Senators asking the FTC what it is doing is pointless nonsense.

Passing some serious, well considered and well written privacy-protecting legislation with real teeth and a properly structured and funded enforcement mechanism might actually accomplish something worthwhile, and organizations like the EFF (and others too numerous to list) have done considerable research into what this would entail. These organizations could immediately provide expert assistance in drafting proper legislation. It says a lot that the Senators are not asking these types of organizations for their input on what the Senators should be doing to protect the privacy of Americans, and, by extension, people all over the world.

But then again, actually accomplishing something worthwhile that would benefit the citizens is generally not what government is about.

That One Guy (profile) says:

What could possibly go wrong with that info?

I’m not seeing a problem to be solved really, I mean it’s not like the pro-birthers have ever been anything but totally civil and polite in their words and deeds, what harm could possibly result from them being able to identify who may or may not have gotten an abortion, even or especially if multiple states do outlaw the procedure and put bounties on anyone involved in them?

Yeah this is nothing but grandstanding, if the senators were actually concerned they’d be working on a bill to address the practice, not asking the FTC what they plan to do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Google should be put limits on the data it collects re user location info and giving users a chance to op out of location data sharing eg if user location is used in apps it should be opt in, not on by default. Also maybe user location data should be erased after 2 days. Of course all this data could be used by police or even other third party’s to seek legal action against women who want to travel to get an abortion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Forced birth for pregnant people is eugenics, murder (if the pregnant person dies as a result of pregnancy or giving birth), and support for sexual assault (if a person is made pregnant via rape or incest).

Tell me again why the state should have the right to force pregnant people into giving up their bodily autonomy but not the right to force non-pregnant people and dead bodies into doing the same in re: organ donation. Go ahead, tell me why a 13-year-old girl who was made pregnant via rape should be forced by law to give birth. I’ll wait.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...