Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

8th Circ. Tosses 4th Amendment Claim In Atty Shoving Suit – Law360

By Nicole Rosenthal (June 17, 2022, 4:59 PM EDT) -- The Eighth Circuit has overturned a Missouri district court's denial of qualified immunity to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who allegedly pushed and injured an immigration attorney, saying the push did not qualify as a seizure violating the Fourth Amendment.

A three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the lower court used an incorrect definition of "seizure" to conclude that ICE officer Ronnet Sasse "seized" Andrea Martinez and allegedly shoved her to the ground as she tried to enter an ICE facility. Martinez says she sustained a fractured foot, a concussion, bleeding and torn pants.

Leaning on the U.S. Supreme Court's definition...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Go here to see the original:
8th Circ. Tosses 4th Amendment Claim In Atty Shoving Suit - Law360

First Circuit Splits on Whether Warrantless Pole-Mounted Video Surveillance Violates Fourth Amendment; District Court Suppression Order Reversed – JD…

[co-author: Durva Trivedi]*

Last week, the First Circuit issued a decision that could be destined for Supreme Court review, but that nonetheless will immediately impact the course of criminal defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, particularly concerning government video camera surveillance. The split en banc decision centers on whether recordings obtained from a remotely controlled digital video camera mounted on a utility pole across from a private residence that was continuously recording the area immediately in front of that home should be suppressed, and whether the camera's installation was a "search" requiring a warrant. The panel of six judges unanimously agreed that evidence obtained from the camera should not be suppressed and was therefore admissible even though the camera was installed without a warrant. But they were divided three to three in two concurring opinions on whether a warrant should have been obtained to install the surveillance camera in the first instance, and whether prior First Circuit jurisprudence permitting warrantless video camera surveillance should be overruled.

Both opinions relied on the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter decision, but the first, 100-page opinion found the eight-month "intensive, long-term surveillance that could expose to a member of the observing public the whole of what visibly transpires in the front of one's home over many months in any practically likely scenario" constituted a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. However, the concurrence also concluded that the government was entitled to rely on the "good faith" exception allowing evidence obtained in a warrantless search to be admissible because the existing precedent at the time of the camera's installation disclaimed the need for a warrant.

The second, 30-page opinion found that the surveillance did not constitute a search, and therefore concluded that the government was not required to seek a warrant prior to installing the camera such that the video evidence was admissible as to the defendants surveilled. The second opinion also relied on Carpenter, but cited Carpenter's endorsement of the warrantless use of "conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras," and that "any purported expectation of privacy in observations of a house unshielded from view on a public street is not in the least like the expectation of privacy" that justified the warrant required by Carpenter for historic cell site location information.

The case centers on a criminal investigation into narcotics trafficking and the unlicensed sale of firearms. In January 2017, the ATF began investigating defendant Moore-Bush and "surreptitiously" installed a digital video camera atop a utility pole near where defendant was living at the time, which recorded the exterior of the home. "ATF agents were able to view a live-stream of what the camera recorded through a password-protected website. The agents also could, remotely, pan, tilt, and zoom the camera to better focus on individuals or objects of interest." The camera had within its view "roughly half of the front structure of the residence, including its side entrance and a gardening plot near that entrance, the whole of the home's private driveway, the front of the home's garage, much of the home's front lawn, and the vast majority of the walkway leading from the home's private driveway up to the home's front door (although not the front door itself)." (references to this area are noted in the opinions as the home's "curtilage").

ATF did not seek a warrant prior to installing the camera, and the camera was ultimately in place and continuously recording for eight months. In January 2018, based in part on evidence from the pole camera, Moore-Bush was indicted and arrested for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine.

In April 2019, Moore-Bush moved to suppress evidence collected by the pole camera, arguing that the continued surveillance of the house constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A Massachusetts federal district court granted that motion, finding that a warrantless search occurred, relying on the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision, which held that the government's acquisition of historic cell site location information providing a detailed record of a defendant's physical movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment (for further discussion of the Carpenter decision, see here).

The district court's suppression order was appealed and, in 2020, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit reversed, holding that surveillance of the exterior of a house did not constitute a search and consequently that the suppression motion should be denied. Then Circuit Judge Barron concurred, although finding that the installation of the pole camera did require a warrant. The appeal was then reheard en banc on the defendant's motion and while the en banc panel of six judges agreed that the suppression order should be reversed, the Judges disagreed significantly on whether a warrant was required to install the pole-mounted video camera in the first instance.

The first concurring opinion, authored by now Chief Judge Barron and joined by two other judges on the en banc court, concluded that a warrantless search did occur, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They found that Moore-Bush's legitimate expectation of privacy was violated when ATF agents collected eight months of aggregated information that no casual observer would see collectively. This concurring opinion relied on Carpenter and other recent Supreme Court cases concerning the application of various technologies to Fourth Amendment doctrine.

These decisions, according to the concurrence, support the conclusion that prolonged surveillance by the government that is streamlined and made possible by modern technology ("scooping up visual information about all that occurs in front of a residence over a long period of time") can constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, even "when each discrete activity in that totality is itself exposed to public view." The Carpenter case, in particular, was relied on by the concurrence to suggest a need to overturn a prior First Circuit decision that held that eight months of video surveillance from a pole-mounted camera did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Beyond concluding that eight months of video surveillance constituted a search, the concurrence did not provide guidance on a specific threshold or timeframe for determining when continuing video surveillance of curtilage amounts to a search, but quoting Carpenter noted that the Supreme Court's warning that "as '[s]ubtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the [g]overnment,' courts are ' obligated' . . . 'to ensure that the progress of science' does not erode Fourth Amendment protections." Nonetheless, the concurrence agreed that the original suppression order should be reversed because of the "good faith" exception, allowing evidence obtained by warrantless surveillance is admissible if conducted in accordance with the law in effect at the time.

In the separate concurrence, three circuit judges concluded that the surveillance, regardless of whether it was "surreptitious," did not constitute a search, that "the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee that suspects have fair notice that an investigation is ongoing," and that Carpenter endorsed warrantless use of security cameras. Additionally, the separate concurrence argued that it should be left to the Supreme Court to decide whether and to what extent legitimate expectations of privacy are violated by government surveillance that uses modern technology to aggregate and capture what is plainly in the public view but only observable over a length of time with technology like remotely accessed and controlled digital video pole cameras.

Looking forward, it has been reported that the defendant in the case has again sought rehearing, based on her argument that the video evidence should nonetheless be suppressed because the government waived the "good faith" exception. However, this point had been argued in the prior briefing and the three judges who thought there should have been a warrant did not "consider the 'good faith' issue to have been waived," so that rehearing would appear unlikely on that point.

The en banc opinions demonstrate significant discord among federal judges on the application of the Fourth Amendment to lengthy remote surveillance enabled by modern technology. It is likely that the defendants will seek certiorari, as the second concurrence concludes that, "if new constitutional durational limits are to be set on the use of long-used, widely-available technology that detects only what is plainly in the public view, it is for the Supreme Court to set those limits."

Judges Lynch, Howard, and Gelp. Former Chief Judge Howard authored the original panel opinion that reversed the suppression order, and here was joined by Judge Lynch from that panel.

* Durva Trivedi, a rising 2nd-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center, is a 2022 Summer Associate at DWT.

[View source.]

Original post:
First Circuit Splits on Whether Warrantless Pole-Mounted Video Surveillance Violates Fourth Amendment; District Court Suppression Order Reversed - JD...

What Is the US Border Enforcement Zone? – Snopes.com

In June 2022, a tweet went viral that supposedly showed a map of a 100-mile border enforcement zone and claimed that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed border patrol agents to violate the Fourth Amendment in this area and enter any home without a warrant and assault you.

The 100-mile border enforcement zone is real, but it wasnt recently created by a Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, border patrol is not explicitly allowed to enter any home without a warrant within this zone (the 100-mile rule generally applies to vehicles) and there are no laws that permit agents to assault people. That being said, the Supreme Court did recently rule against an individual who was suing a border patrol agent for violating Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.

While many people may think of the border as the dividing line between the United States and Mexico, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents actually operate around the entire border of the United States. That includes the countrys northern border with Canada, as well as the eastern, western, and southern coastlines.

This so-called Border Enforcement one, as the meme called it, has been around since the 1950s, when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 established that a reasonable distance of the border would extend 100-air miles around the outline of the country.

According to 8 U.S. Code 1357, employees of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Patrol are granted certain powers without warrant within this area, such as the authority to board and search for aliens on any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. This law also gives border patrol agents the authority to access private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. However, the law states that border patrol agents only have the authority to access private lands within 25 miles of the border, not 100 miles.

Heres how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described this border enforcement zone:

Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States. These external boundaries include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline.

What is a reasonable distance?The federal government defines a reasonable distance as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.

The map included in the above-displayed tweet appeared to have originated with a 2020 article from the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), a border-policy advocacy group. This organization wrote at the time:

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol, is the largest law enforcement agency in the country. The jurisdiction they claim spans 100 miles into the interior of the United States from any land or maritime border. Two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within this 100-mile border enforcement zone, including cities like Washington D.C., San Francisco CA, Chicago IL, New Orleans LA, Boston MA, & more.

Because these are considered border cities, federal border and immigration agents assert the power to board public transportation or set up interior checkpoints and stop, interrogate and search children on their way to school, parents on their way to work, and families going to doctors appointments or the grocery store all done without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

We reached out to CBP and we will update this article if more information becomes available.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In short, it was designed to protect Americans against arbitrary arrests and requires law enforcement to obtain warrants before searching homes.

While performing searches without a warrant may seem like a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that searches within the zone do not violate that amendment. In the 1976 case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration checkpoints within this zone were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, writing that it would be impractical to require such stops to always be based on reasonable suspicion and that brief questioning of the vehicles occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The tweet above went viral in the days after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Egbert v. Boule, which dealt with an interaction between a border agent (Erik Egbert) and the owner of a bed and breakfast on the border of the United States and Canada (Robert Boule). This case did not establish or change the size of a new border zone. Rather, as The New York Times reported, the court ruled that only Congress could authorize lawsuits against federal agents for violating constitutional rights.

The New York Times reported:

The owner of an inn on the Canadian border who said he had been assaulted by a Border Patrol agent may not sue the agent for violating the Constitution by using excessive force,the Supreme Court ruledon Wednesday.

The decision, by a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines, stopped just short of overruling a 1971 precedent,Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, that allowed federal courts, rather than Congress, to authorize at least some kinds of lawsuits seeking money from federal officials accused of violating constitutional rights.

But the basic message of Wednesdays decision, Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147, was that only Congress can authorize such suits.

Heres an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opinion. Thomas wrote:

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court authorized a damages action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Over the past 42 years, however, we have declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations [] Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals permitted not one, but two constitutional damages actions to proceed against a U. S. Border Patrol agent: a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim. Because our cases have made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts, we reverse.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in the Egbert v. Boule case, writing that the decision closes the door to lawsuits from those who suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents. Sotomayor referenced the border zone in her opinion, writing:

The consequences of the Courts drive-by, categorical assertion will be severe. Absent intervention by Congress, CBP agents are now absolutely immunized from liability in any Bivens action for damages, no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury. That will preclude redress under Bivens for injuries resulting from constitutional violations by CBPs nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents, including those engaged in ordinary law enforcement activities, like traffic stops, far removed from the border. [] This is no hypothetical: Certain CBP agents exercise broad authority to make warrantless arrests and search vehicles up to 100 miles away from the border. See 8 U. S. C. 1357(a); 8 CFR 287.1(a)(2) (2021). The Courts choice to foreclose liability for constitutional violations that occur in the course of such activities, based on even the most tenuous and hypothetical connection to the border (and thereby, to the national security context), betrays the context-specific nature of Bivens and shrinks Bivens in the core Fourth Amendment law enforcement sphere where it is needed most.

The map in the tweet showing a 100-mile border enforcement zone refers to the Border Patrols authority to conduct warrantless searches in pursuit of aliens within a reasonable distance of the border. While the map was geographically accurate, the Supreme Court did not create this zone in June 2022.

Sources:

8 U.S. Code 1357 Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357. Accessed 10 June 2022.

100-Mile Border Enforcement Zone. Southern Border Communities Coalition, https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

ACLU Factsheet on Customs and Border Protections 100-Mile Zone. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border-protections-100-mile-zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

Congress Tackles the 100-Mile Border Zone for Federal Checkpoints. Just Security, 30 July 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/65136/congress-tackles-the-100-mile-border-zone-for-federal-checkpoints/.

Know Your Rights in the 100 Mile Border Zone. ACLU of New Mexico, 24 Sept. 2021, https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-100-mile-border-zone.

Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Sides With Border Agent Accused of Using Excessive Force. The New York Times, 8 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/supreme-court-border-agent-excessive-force.html.

Millhiser, Ian. The Supreme Court Gives Lawsuit Immunity to Border Patrol Agents Who Violate the Constitution. Vox, 8 June 2022, https://www.vox.com/23159672/supreme-court-egbert-boule-bivens-law-enforcement-border-patrol-immunity.

The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-officers-facing-liability-on-civil-claims-get-high-court-pass/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

See the original post here:
What Is the US Border Enforcement Zone? - Snopes.com

Privacy Isn’t In the Constitution. But It’s Everywhere in Constitutional Law. – FlaglerLive.com

Almost all American adults including parents, medical patients and people who are sexually active regularly exercise their right to privacy, even if they dont know it.

Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But for half a century, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an outgrowth of protections for individual liberty. As I have studied in my research on constitutional privacy rights, this implied right to privacy is the source of many of the nations most cherished, contentious and commonly used rights including the right to have an abortion.

The Supreme Court first formally identified what is called decisional privacy the right to independently control the most personal aspects of our lives and our bodies in 1965, saying it was implied from other explicit constitutional rights.

For instance, the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly allow people to privately decide what theyll say, and with whom theyll associate. The Fourth Amendment limits government intrusion into peoples private property, documents and belongings.

Relying on these explicit provisions, the court concluded in Griswold v. Connecticut that people have privacy rights preventing the government from forbidding married couples from using contraception.

In short order, the court clarified its understanding of the constitutional origins of privacy. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to have an abortion, the court held that the right of decisional privacy is based in the Constitutions assurance that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. That phrase, called the due process clause, appears twice in the Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

Decisional privacy also provided the basis for other decisions protecting many crucial, and everyday, activities.

The right to privacy protects the ability to have consensual sex without being sent to jail. And privacy buttresses the ability to marry regardless of race or gender.

The right to privacy is also key to a persons ability to keep their family together without undue government interference. For example, in 1977, the court relied on the right to private family life to rule that a grandmother could move her grandchildren into her home to raise them even though it violated a local zoning ordinance.

Under a combination of privacy and liberty rights, the Supreme Court has also protected a persons freedom in medical decision-making. For example, in 1990, the court concluded that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.

The right to decisional privacy is not the only constitutionally protected form of privacy. As then-Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist noted in 1977, the concept of privacy can be a coat of many colors, and quite differing kinds of rights to privacy have been recognized in the law.

This includes what is called a right to informational privacy letting a person limit government disclosure of information about them.

According to some authority, the right extends even to prominent public and political figures. In one key decision, in 1977, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Rehnquist both conservative justices suggested in dissenting opinions that former President Richard Nixon had a privacy interest in documents made during his presidency that touched on his personal life. Lower courts have relied on the right of informational privacy to limit the governments ability to disclose someones sexual orientation or HIV status.

All told, though the word isnt in the Constitution, privacy is the foundation of many constitutional protections for our most important, sensitive and intimate activities. If the right to privacy is eroded such as in a future Supreme Court decision many of the rights its connected with may also be in danger.

Scott Skinner-Thompson is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Excerpt from:
Privacy Isn't In the Constitution. But It's Everywhere in Constitutional Law. - FlaglerLive.com

Murray, Warren, Wyden, Whitehouse, Sanders Introduce Legislation to Ban Data Brokers from Selling Americans’ Location Data and Health Data | The U.S….

06.15.22

With the Extremist Supreme Court Poised to Overturn Roe v. Wade, the Need to Protect Location and Health Data is More Crucial than Ever

Data Privacy Expert: Health and Location Data Protection Act would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law

Washington, D.C. Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act, legislation that bans data brokers from selling some of the most sensitive data available about everyday Americans: their health and location data. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. The legislation would reign in largely unregulated data brokers, whose data has been used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, out LGBTQ+ people, stalk and harass individuals, and jeopardize the safety of people who visit abortion clinics for health care.

As extremist Republican lawmakers work around the clock to criminalize essential health servicesincluding abortionpatients private health and location data must be protected, said Senator Murray. Selling peoples most sensitive data to turn a profit isnt just wrongits dangerous, and risks Americans safety as they seek the care they need. Im proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act to protect peoples sensitive health dataparticularly as Republicans attack all of our reproductive rights.

Data brokers profit from the location data of millions of people, posing serious risks to Americans everywhere by selling their most private information, said Senator Warren. With this extremist Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and states seeking to criminalize essential health care, it is more crucial than ever for Congress to protect consumers sensitive data. The Health and Location Data Protection Act will ban brokers from selling Americans location and health data, rein in giant data brokers, and set some long overdue rules of the road for this $200 billion industry.

When abortion is illegal, researching reproductive health care online, updating a period-tracking app, or bringing a phone to the doctors office all could be used to track and prosecute women across the U.S. It amounts touterus surveillance. Congress must protect Americans privacy from abuse by far-right politicians who want to control womens bodies. Im proud to work with Senator Warren to introduce theHealth and Location Data Protection Act,said Senator Wyden.

Americans ought to feel confident that their highly sensitive data isnt hocked to the highest bidder without their consent. We need sensible rules for the handling of personal health and location data, especially in light of recent efforts to ban or even criminalize abortion care and other important health care,said Senator Whitehouse.Im pleased to join Sen. Warren in introducing this important bill.

Data brokers collect and sell intensely personal data from millions of Americans, often without their consent or knowledge, reaping massive profits. Largely unregulated by federal law, the unsavory business practices of data brokers pose real dangers to Americans everywhere.

The Health and Location Data Protection Act would:

The legislation is endorsed by a wide range of data and sexual privacy experts, including experts from Duke University, University of Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Health and location data are incredibly sensitive and can be used for a range of harms, from profiling and exploiting consumers to spying on citizens without warrants to carrying out stalking and violence. Companies should not be allowed to freely buy and sell Americans health and location data, on the open market, with virtually no restrictions. Imposing strong legal and regulatory controls on this dangerous practice is vital to protecting the privacy of every Americanparticularly women, the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, the poor, and other vulnerable communities, said Justin Sherman, Fellow and Research Lead, Data Brokerage Project, Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy.

This bill provides crucial protection to the privacy of our intimate lives. Our health and location information should not be sold or shared but rather treated with utmost care. It paints a detailed picture of our close relationships, health conditions, doctor visits, and other aspects of our intimate lives for which we expect and deserve privacy. This bill includes strong and clear rules against the sharing of health and location data and civil penalties and injunctive relief to back them up, said Danielle Citron, Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law and Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law & Vice President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

I am happy to endorse Senator Warrens Health and Location Data Protection Act, said Neil Richards, Koch Distinguished Professor in Law and Director of the Cordell Institute, Washington University in St. Louis. For far too long, shadowy networks of data brokers have engaged in an unregulated and unethical trade in our sensitive data for their own profit. This bill would offer significant protections for everyone in our society at a time when the privacy of our health and our location data is becoming ever-more important to our ability to live our lives without fear of betrayal, manipulation, or coercion. The HLDPA would be a significant step in restoring the balance of power between humans and the corporations who trade in their data for profit.

By sharing peoples sensitive and personal information, data brokers fuel harmful surveillance and endanger the most vulnerable members of our society. The Health and Location Data Protection Act would finally begin to rein in these invasive business practices, offering people long-overdue protection from this notoriously unregulated and reckless industry, said Thomas Kadri, Assistant Professor, University of Georgia School of Law.

This is an important bill that will protect digital privacy, and at an especially sensitive time when location data may be used to track those seeking reproductive health services after the Supreme Court decides the Dobbs case, said Elizabeth E. Joh, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law.

Peoples health and location data leaves them remarkably vulnerable. It can reveal the most intimate aspects of their lives and also opens them up to pervasive tracking, harassment, wrongful discrimination, financial loss, and physical injury. Yet data brokers remain free to sell and share this data in ways that lead to harm and abuse, said Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law and Computer Science, Northeastern University. The Health and Location Data Act of 2022 is a desperately needed intervention that would impose substantive limits on the ability of data brokers to trade on our vulnerabilities. This bill wisely avoids ineffective notice and choice approaches and instead draws clear lines prohibiting selling and sharing of our most sensitive data. It would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law.

Senator Murray has long been a leader in Congress in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights. Since the Supreme Court agreed to hearDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, Senator Murray hasvowedto fight back and protectRoe v. Wadeand everyones reproductive rightsincluding bybuilding supportand fighting tohold a voteon theWomens Health Protection Act, which would protect the right to abortion nationwide. Since the leaked decision revealed that the Supreme Court was planning to overturnRoe, Senator Murray has been a leader in the Senate pushing back:immediately callingthe decision afive alarm fire,pushingfor a voteon WHPA so every Republican Senator was forced to show the American public where they stood andleadingher colleagues in the fight to protect everyones reproductive rights.

Legislative text is available here. A bill summary is available here.

###

Go here to read the rest:
Murray, Warren, Wyden, Whitehouse, Sanders Introduce Legislation to Ban Data Brokers from Selling Americans' Location Data and Health Data | The U.S....