
AT&T to Face EFF Class Action for Selling Customers’ Location to Bounty Hunters - howard941
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43j99g/eff-hits-atandt-with-class-action-lawsuit-for-selling-customers-location-to-bounty-hunters
======
alteria
I initially thought the EFF was suing for publicity, knowing that the
mandatory arbitration provisions and class-action waivers were likely to
stand.

However, they do have some legs to stand on, since California's supreme court
ruled in 2017 that injunctive relief could still be sought under an
arbitration agreement. [1]

Of course it's likely that this ruling wouldn't be held up by the Supreme
Court, which has consistently upheld/defended arbitration agreements, but one
can dream.

[1][https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/...](https://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2017/04/california-
supreme-court)

~~~
rayiner
I don’t see how the FAA is within Congress’s commerce clause power.

~~~
microcolonel
It is one of the greatest blunders of the constitution. Nowhere near enough
thought went into limiting the power. Granted, the commerce clause is almost
_the whole purpose of the federal government_ , but it's nonetheless far too
broad.

 _Everything_ is interstate commerce.

~~~
wahern
Plenty of stuff isn't interstate commerce. The expansion of Federal Commerce
Clause powers is the result of a more expansive application of the Necessary &
Proper Clause.

Which is why the recent FAA decisions are absurd on their face. Even _if_ you
agreed with the 1940s era precedent expanding Federal _powers_ it's still
trivial to reject application of the FAA to most commercial transactions. The
FAA expressly limits itself to interstate commerce. And an expansion of
federal powers doesn't in any way, shape, or form require or even suggest that
a court should reinterpret the settled application of previous statute,
_particularly_ when the text, intent, purpose, and history of that statute was
quite obviously circumscribed to a particular class of commercial
transactions.

~~~
derefr
Almost everything _can be interpreted as_ interstate commerce (and is!) I
believe what the GP is saying is that, in light of this, a more prescient
constitution would have restricted Congress's power to regulate interstate
commerce, breaking that down into many small powers and no default blanket
assumption of power beyond those.

~~~
wahern
Example: The growing or even selling of marijuana is _not_ interstate
commerce. No court has ever said it constitutes interstate commerce. It's only
been deemed to _possibly_ substantially effect interstate commerce, except
when the particular product or participants are actually crossing state
borders.[1] But that interpretation alone doesn't get you to the
interpretation that the Federal government can regulate it; it's literally two
steps divorced from interstate commerce. It's the Necessary & Proper Clause
that was used to encompass activities involving marijuana.

Saying that everything can be interpreted as interstate commerce is
misleading, and if it intended as a critique of constitutional law has the
effect of suggesting that nothing can actually be done to change it as a
practical matter, when that's just not the case. The Necessary & Proper Clause
by its nature provides poorly defined boundaries, which means it's far easier
to limit extensions than if the definition of interstate commerce had
literally been made expansive--which, to reiterate, has remained much the same
since the expansion of Federal powers began in the late 19th century and
arguably even since the 18th century.

I grudgingly agreed with the argument that Obamacare was a valid use of
Federal Commerce Clause power (as extended by the Necessary & Proper Clause)
because of the precedent of Gonzales v. Raich from 2005 when _two_
conservative justices agreed with the logic above with four other liberal
justices. But Gonzales was _new_ case law. At the time they could have
legitimately and reasonably drew a line that said such activity was too far
removed from interstate commerce. But they didn't. Apparently even for a
justice like Scalia they'd prefer to complain that "everything is interstate
commerce" rather than draw meaningful--and _obvious_ \--distinctions. But
Scalia (along with Kennedy) didn't, not because it would overturn precedent--
it was an unanswered question--but because he didn't want to throw the FDA and
the War on Drugs in particular into disarray.

So when Obamacare came around and Scalia was apoplectic about Roberts siding
with upholding the law (albeit on a tax theory), all I could do was roll my
eyes.

My point being: let's be honest and fair about this stuff. By pretending that
these extensions of Federal power are a fait accompli, then that's precisely
what we'll get. Not because it's _true_ , but because we're just being lazy.
Even if one is committed to existing precedent, there will come a day when we
see pressure to extend Federal power further, probably in entirely
unpredictable ways. Honesty and vigilance will matter.

[2] AFAIU, using telecommunications in the transaction is a separate crime.
It's not the buying/selling, per se, but the use of interstate infrastructure
to conspire to buy/sell.

------
H8crilA
PSA: remember to periodically donate to EFF if you can and care. I'm sending
them about 25% of my continuous donation budget:

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

~~~
diafygi
I like donating what I call "The Orwell Tax". $19.84 per month (or year, if
you can't afford monthly).

------
mikelward
I didn't realize they did this until I heard about it in a Reply All episode.
[https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-
all/awhk76/135-robocall-...](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-
all/awhk76/135-robocall-bang-
bang?utm_source=gimletPlayer&utm_medium=copyShare&utm_campaign=gimletPlayer)

No way would I have consented to them selling my location data.

------
t34543
Disgusting. We are all subsidizing spyware (mobile phones).

------
hkai
I could not figure out why this is not considered personal information. Is the
data anonymized or has a phone number attached to it?

------
jacklinks
Don't forget the aggregators like 3cinteractive

------
jimbob45
Why would the lawyers choose _this_ hill to be the hill they live and die
upon? I feel like you're going to have a tough time garnering sympathy for
this specific case.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Protecting civil liberties generally means defending unsympathetic characters.
They always are chosen first, and they must be defended before the precedent
is set. By the time encroachers move on to sympathetic characters, it's too
late. The encroachment has been normalized, it is in fact normal, and the
liberty was lost already.

That's not my original thought, but I can't find the original quote. I think
it's from the ACLU, from some occasion when Jewish lawyers were defending free
speech of neonazis or something.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)

Is the case you're looking for. On its face, ACLU defended Neonazis.

A deeper reading is that the ACLU defended the first amendment's rights of
speech and of peacably assemble and redress grievances.

History: Skokie was a destination for many Jewish peoples who came from the
death camps in Germany in WWII. Choosing this site for the march was
intentional. However, the march wasn't actually done.

