AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint reportedly broke US law by selling 911 location data
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Erm, if legally dubious actions by bail bondsmen or bounty hunters was grounds for recourse you'd be hearing a *lot* more of that going on.
...so no. There's kind of a tacit understanding that if you skip on your bail the guy coming to get you is going to pull out a few stops the police wouldn't (be allowed to, anyway).
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
What would happen to me if I kept telling the government 'Yes, I'll stop this lawbreaking right now." and didn't? Does Pai do anything but suck corporate dick while we pay his wages?
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Usually, a judge doesn't care how a fugitive got to his court. That's for the fugitive's lawyer to sort out.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
And this is the data that's illegal to sell. It's safe to assume that everything that is legal to sell -- which is basically everything else, everyone you call, how long you talk with them, everything you do online -- is also for sale to data aggregators.
This means in addition to desperately needing privacy legislation, it also needs to have extremely sharp teeth when it comes to enforcement.
This means in addition to desperately needing privacy legislation, it also needs to have extremely sharp teeth when it comes to enforcement.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
My understanding is that they were selling location data (though not sure if if it was as detailed as 911 data) like the other ones, but then actually did stop (supposedly), unlike the other ones. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that they in fact had not...but as of yet they haven't been caught.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Am I the only one who finds animated gifs in these comment threads incredibly annoying. Independently of the content of the gif, they are all annoying, just like an auto-playing video clip.
At least they are quiet, unlike an auto-play video, but the short repeat cycle makes the image even more annoying than an auto-play video.
Upvote
10
(12
/
-2)
It's a pity that the reputation of neutron bombs for purging the people and preserving the infrastructure is somewhat exaggerated. Because we could really use that here. (Except where the telcos have also been sandbagging on infrastructure investment hard enough that we might as well replace that as well...)
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
That's not correct.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... data-years
Like with the companies involved in Motherboard’s previous investigation, CerCareOne’s real-time location data trickled down first from telecom companies, and then to a so-called location aggregator called Locaid. From there, Locaid sold that data access to a number of different companies, including CerCareOne, which in turn sold it to its own clients. Locaid was purchased by a company called LocationSmart in 2015 . The documents Motherboard obtained indicate that LocationSmart continued to sell data to CerCareOne after it obtained Locaid, and LocationSmart confirmed that to Motherboard.
So the telecoms sold it to Locaid (and no doubt other companies). Probably the telecoms pretended that Locaid and the other aggregators would only provide it to 911 services and first responders; basically a way of laundering the data. Locaid then sold it to CerCareOne and other companies.
The focus on bounty hunters is A) because it is an example use which is explicitly illegal, and B) how it was discovered, but that does not mean that the aggregators did not sell it to anyone else. CerCareOne required all of its customers to keep the source of the information secret so as to avoid ruining their scheme. This data is undoubtedly also being sold to advertisers and insurers who are both very interested in data mining to build up more detailed profiles of their target audience and customers. But while it's easy for reporters to pretend to be bounty hunters (required qualifications: basically nothing), it's very hard for them to be an established insurance company and prove that is happening.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I'm sure Pai will be all over this.
"You guys stop doing this, it is making us look bad"
"Umm, err Okay. But it may take a few years to wind this down"
"No problem then. No harm, no foul"
"You guys stop doing this, it is making us look bad"
"Umm, err Okay. But it may take a few years to wind this down"
"No problem then. No harm, no foul"
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Never going to happen. Too much money at stake to worry about what is in the public's best interest.
Even if they did go to jail, they would more than likely receive a presidential pardon before serving a day.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Oh, but all these customers did knowingly give their consent. It was very clearly pointed out on page 666 of our T&C's, just after the bit where they allow us to sell their soul to Satan...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Too much regulation. If we deregulate for profit companies, they will no longer want to earn as much profit.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
You forget what site you are on, you always need the sarcasim tag here.
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
I looked it up:
Wheeler says, "We do not need detailed ex ante rules and regulations to know that this is simply unacceptable. Failure to take reasonable steps to secure consumer information is a clear breach of a carrier’s duty to protect the confidentiality of the customer information they collect and an “unjust and unreasonable practice” – both violations of the companies’ statutory obligations under the Communications Act."
Pai says, "...there is no pre-existing legal obligation to protect personally identifiable information (also known as PII) or notify customers of a PII data breach to enforce. The Commission has never interpreted the Communications Act to impose an enforceable duty on carriers to “employ reasonable data security practices to protect” PII.3 The Commission has never expounded a duty that carriers notify all consumers of a data breach of PII. The Commission has never adopted rules regarding the misappropriation, breach, or unlawful disclosure of PII. The Commission never identifies in the entire Notice of Apparent Liability a single rule that has been violated.
He goes on to complain that even if the rules were enforceable the violation could result in a fine of $9 billion and that's too high, "One more thing. The Commission asserts that the base forfeiture for these violations is nine billion dollars—that’s $9,000,000,000—which is by far the biggest in our history. It strains credulity to think that Congress intended such massive potential liability for “telecommunications carriers” but not retailers or banks or insurance companies or tech companies or cable operators or any of the myriad other businesses that possess consumers’ PII. Nor can I understand how such liability can be squared with the Enforcement Bureau’s recent consent decrees with these companies. Under those consent decrees, the companies paid the Treasury $440,000 and $160,000 for flouting our actual rules and draining the Universal Service Fund by seeking Lifeline support multiple times for the same customer."
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
When did illegal behavior concern corporate policy? The risk of being caught is simply factored into the benefits. For example, if a corporation breaks the law but over time nets $100 billion, gets caught and pays a $1 billion fine, that's a pretty decent return. Geez. I wonder why corporations continue doing those things? If Congress were serious about stopping this kind of activity it would pass legislation that captures all the ill-gotten profits as well. Period.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Remember when Bertie Wooster's conviction made him ineligible for a position in his club? Jeeves solved that by getting all the other club members arrested, which forced an instant rule change.
Would it be any different today?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
So, instead of executing his duties Pai secretly is moonlighting as a Supreme Court justice.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If no one is enforcing a law, is it still a law?
Someone give the US its nuts back.
Someone give the US its nuts back.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
my first cell phone was in 1995 & that was john smith, you mean people still get these things in their real name?
talkin on cell phones got alot of kings done in, i want to live like arnold, willis, & mr drummond llpc ugk4life
if you really in the streets new phone, new sim
every few weeks, if not every few months, if you el chapo or make 7 figures every day or few, & never eva eva put it in your real name just pay the deposit or go prepaid
at the very least change the number every month or few
anyone with 50-100 bucks & knows a customer service rep making $11 an hour can get all the info they want, this doesnt stop bounty hunters or stalkers(police) 1 bit
& dont do the crime if you cant pay the fine
talkin on cell phones got alot of kings done in, i want to live like arnold, willis, & mr drummond llpc ugk4life
if you really in the streets new phone, new sim
every few weeks, if not every few months, if you el chapo or make 7 figures every day or few, & never eva eva put it in your real name just pay the deposit or go prepaid
at the very least change the number every month or few
anyone with 50-100 bucks & knows a customer service rep making $11 an hour can get all the info they want, this doesnt stop bounty hunters or stalkers(police) 1 bit
& dont do the crime if you cant pay the fine
Upvote
-15
(0
/
-15)
If there's any prosecutor out there who fancies being the next president, bring a RICO case agsinst these telcos. The second stories appear in the evening news with the execs being hauled off in orange jumpsuits, your approval rating will top President Trump and the democratic candidate combined.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
More likely to get a pat on the back from Pai. "There, there, it's ok. Those mean old consumer advocacy groups won't bother you any more. Here, have some some obligation-free subsidies. They'll help you feel better"
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Envelope stuffed with pieces of paper printed in green ink is more likely. Although he won't say that out loud.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I think it's rather naive to expect the FCC to actually regulate the major telecom carriers in any meaningful way when those same carriers are considered "assets" by NSA etc.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Wish I had $5B to hire Moxie Marlinspike to create a Telco that can't be accused of "do you even encrypt bro?", and redirects all data collection to /dev/null 2>&1 after 5 minutes (gotta give support some clue as to what just went wrong)...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Absolutely nothing will happen. Republicans and the human feces that vote for them will let it slide
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
I think they'll huff and puff and say they won't do it again, but really, I'd rather them come out and say 'We're going to keep doing it because we know Pai isn't going to do anything about it'. So that would leave it up to the Justice Dept to lower the hammer, if they can.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
That "Someone" would undoubtedly be hunted down like a dog and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Same for threats to elected representatives. There simply cannot be any doubt in the mind of the public that no measure or expense will be spared to ensure that The Oligarchy Stands Undeterred!
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Until jail time is enforced. All files do is increase the required bribe for a teleconference to try to circumvent it chance the rules.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Chemical Tribe
Ars Legatus Legionis
Oh, I'm trying to see what the fuss is all about. I mean, it's the third party doctrine, and of course I freely gave it up so I have no right to privacy.
Or, do I? I guess my location is private, but everything else isn't. I feel better now. /s
Or, do I? I guess my location is private, but everything else isn't. I feel better now. /s
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)